CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN HOMEOPATHY versus BIPIN CHANDRA LAKHERA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 505 · Decided: 20-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 5 S.C.R. 505 
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN HOMEOPATHY 
V. 
BIPIN CHANDRA LAKHERA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal no.3286 of 2007) 
APRIL 20, 2011 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law: Seniority - Adhoc service for the period 
before regularisation cannot be counted for seniority - In the 
instant case, respondent no. 1 appointed as Research 
C 
Assistant on adhoc basis in 1984 was selected on regular 
post w. e. f. 5. 1. 1996 -
Ad hoc service from 1984 till 
regularisation could not be added for the purpose of seniority. 
Ch. Narayana Rao v. Union of India & Ors. (2010) 10 
D 
sec 247 - relied on. 
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Aghore Nath Dey & Ors. 
(1993) 3 sec 371 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2010) 10 sec 247 
(1993) 3 sec 371 
Relied on 
Referred to 
Paras 9, 12 
Para 9 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
3286 of 2007. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.03.2004 of the High 
Court of Sikkim at Gangtok in Writ Petition (C) No. 542 of 1998. 
S.N. Bhat for the Appellant. 
Shrish Kumar Misra, Mukul Singh, Ajay Kr, Singh for the 
Respondents. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
505 
E 
F 
G 
H 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
ORDER 
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent 
No. 1. As regards the other respondents in respect of whom 
service is complete no one has entered appearance on their 
8 behalf so far. 
2. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned 
judgment & order dated 24.03.2004 passed by the High Court 
of Sikkim in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 542 of 1998. 
c 
3. The facts have been given in the impugned judgment 
and order and hence we are not repeating the same here, 
except where necessary. 
4. The short question in this Appeal is whether ad hoc 
0 
service of respondent No. 1 from 1984 before his regularisation 
with effect from 05.01.1996 can be added for the purpose of 
seniority. We are of the opinion that it cannot. 
5. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 was appointed as 
Research Assistant (Homeopathy) in the service of the appellant 
E on purely ad hoc basis by order dated 03.02.1984 till 
31.03.1984 or till the post is filled on a regular basis whichever 
was earlier. This appointment was done without any regular 
selection. 
F 
6. It may be noted that respondent No. 1 herein (Writ 
petitioner before the High Court) had not applied for 
appointment in response to any advertisement issued by the 
appellant. In his application respondent No. 1 stated that "I have 
come to know through some reliable sources that there is a 
post of Research Assistant lying vacant in the Central Council 
G for Research in Homeopathy." Accordingly, respondent No. 1 
was offered the post on a purely ad hoc basis vide order dated 
03.02.1984 clearly stating that his appointment was till 
31.03.1984 or till a regularly selected candidate joins, whichever 
was earlier. Thus, this appointment was made without following 
H 
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN 
507 
HOMEOPATHY y. BIPIN CHANDRA LAKHERA 
any procedure. The tenure was extended by the appellant from 
A 
time to time .. 
7. The post of Research Assistant was advertised in 1986 
and respondent No. 1 applied for the post and was called for 
an interView before a Selection Committee on 29.06.1987 but 
8 
was not found suitable. However, he was continued on ad hoc 
basis in view of an interim order passed by the High Court in 
a writ petition. 
8. The post was again advertised in 1995 for regular 
appointment and respondent No. 1 again applied, and this time 
C 
he was successful and given regular appointment with effect 
from 05.01.1996. 
9. It has been held by this Court in Ch. Narayana Rao Vs. 
Union of India & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 247, and State of West 
D 
f3engal & Ors. Vs. Aghore Nath Dey & Ors., (1993) 3 SCC 
371, that ad hoc service before regularisation cannot be 
counted for seniority. 
10. It was contended by learned counsel for respondent 
No. 1 that some others similarly situate have been given 
E 
retrospective regularisation. This is not correct. No one has 
been given benefit of ad hoc service for the purpose of seniority. 
The persons mentioned in the writ petition are those persons 
who had been selected earlier, whereas respondent No. 1 had 
not been selected. Such persons have been given seniority only 
F 
from the date of their regular appointment after selection. 
11. It has been pointed out in paragraph 17 of the counter 
affidavit filed by the Council b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.