BABU RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal dated 30.3.2000 passed in O.A. No. 1564/1999. The petitioner was initially appointed as Steno-Typist in the year 1971 and was promoted as Accountant in the year 1975. He was thereafter promoted as Superintendent in the year 1985. On 17.3.1998, the respondents ordered that the petitioner who was then posted as Superintendent Grade-II, is promoted as Registrar (on ad hoc basis) of the Board of Ayurvedic & Unani Systems of Medicines, H.P. for a period of six months or till the post is filled up on regular basis (whichever is earlier). This order also made clear that the petitioner would have no right to claim any benefit of his having held the post of Registrar on ad hoc basis.

(2.) VIDE order dated 20.11.1998 this arrangement was ordered to be continued till 31.12.1998. On 31.12.1998, respondent No. 1 appointed one Dr. P.D. Sharma as the Registrar of the H.P. Ayurvedic and Unani Board. The petitioner challenged the appointment of Dr. P.D. Sharma in this Court by filing CWP No. 3 of 1999, which was rejected on the ground that the petitioner should first approach the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner thereafter approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1564/1999. In the meantime, Dr. P.D. Sharma was transferred and in his place respondent No. 4 Dr. Neel Chand was appointed as a Registrar.

(3.) WE have gone through the entire record and find that at the time when the petitioner was initially appointed as a Registrar, the State had not framed any Recruitment and Promotion Rules for appointment of a Registrar. It was under these circumstances that the petitioner was appointed/promoted as a Registrar on ad hoc basis. The order of his appointment clearly stated that this was a temporary ad hoc arrangement and was to continue till regular appointment was made. The State thereafter framed the draft Recruitment and Promotion Rules and provided that the post of Registrar would be filled up by deputation from amongst the Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikaries or Senior Ayurvedic Chikitsaks having 15/5 years service. Though these rules have not been officially notified, in the absence of statutory rules they can be considered to be executive instructions. As per the draft rules, the post of Superintendent which the petitioner was substantively holding does not even fall within the feeder category from which appointment could be made to the post of a Registrar. The orders whereby the petitioner had been promoted clearly stipulated that his appointment/promotion was on temporary basis and he was promoted in his own pay scale. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that he could have any legitimate expectation to the post. Further he had no inherent right to hold the post since as per the draft Recruitment and Promotion Rules framed he does not even fall within the field of choice. Since the orders were categorical that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis till regular appointment is made, the petitioner has no right to claim that he should be promoted as Registrar.