MEENAKSHI JAMWAL Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Stand taken by the respondents for making appointment on adhoc basis for a period of 89 days initially and extendable as per the requirement of the department for a further period of 89 days only for the post mentioned in the advertisement notice published in Daily Excelsior of November, 1998, copy whereof is Annexure-G, is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. The petitioner is qualified in the discipline of B.D.S. Course. She wants to get appointment on regular basis. It is submitted that the respondents have not indicated any criteria on the basis of which selection is to be made. Challenge to the advertisement is on the ground :

(2.) In para-4 of the writ petition, it is submitted that addition of 2% marks depending upon number of years which have lapsed between the date of application and the obtaining of the degree, is said to be not a sound criteria. The grievance of the petitioner as projected by the petitioner was taken note of, when the petition was taken for motion hearing on 29.1.99. A direction was given to keep one post vacant. This order was modified on 24.9.99; operative portion of which is reproduced below :-

(3.) Thus basic stand of the petitioner is that adhoc appointment should not be made when the need is permanent and that the criteria fixed in the matter giving 2% weightage on the basis of gap between entry into the service and obtaining the degree, is not be good criteria. So far as policy of making adhoc arrangement when the need is permanent is concerned, the consistent view is that the policy of adhocism adopted by the State Government for a long time results in the branch of Articles 14 and 16 adhoc appointments are unreasonable, arbitrary and is nothing but the archaic hire and fire policy since demolished by the Constitution and the law. System of appointment making appointments on adhoc basis for varying periods though the petitioner is entitled for regular appointment is discriminatory and violative of constitutional protection. The power to make provisional appointment is not a charter for arbitrary preference. It is no administrative licence to ignore the service conditions of serving personnel. Provisional appointments cannot be made in violation of the rules, though, in very urgent cases, this power may be invoked when rules cannot be complied with. A provisional appointment cannot be continued endlessly jeopardizing the rights of the employees governed by specific service rules. Therefore, when the need is permanent, the State should not resort to adhocism.