EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA AND ANR. versus V. SREEKANTA

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 267 · Decided: 05-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA AND ANR. 
A 
r 
v. 
V. SREEKANTA 
MARCH 5, 1993 
[P.B. SAWANT AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] 
B 
'+' 
' 
Karnataka State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment to class III posts) 
' 
(Special) Rules, 1970: 
Rules 3, 6-Seniority-fnspector of Excis~Appointment of "local can- c 
didate''--Regularisatio,,.-Counting of service for purpose of seniority--
Whether from date of adlioc appointment or regulan·sation. 
The Respondent and several others were appointed as Inspectors of 
Excise (Junior) on a purely temporary basis on 17.1.1968. The services of D 
these "local candidates" i.e. direct recruits appointed otherwise than in 
,, 
accordance with the General Rules or Special Rules, were regularised 
from 26.10.1971. Provisional seniority list prepared by the Department 
showed the seniority of these candidates from the date of their regularisa-
tion and not from their date of appointment. Despite objections from the 
E 
candidates the said list was finalised. The Respondent challenged the 
~ 
seniority list by filing a Writ Petition before the High Court. The Writ 
Petition was disposed of with a direction to the appellants that the 
seniority list should be published afresh considering the claim of the 
respondent that his seniority should be counted from his date of appoint-
ment and not from the date of his regularisation. Again, the department F 
published a provisional seniority list showing the seniority of the Respon· 
dent from the date of his regularisation. The Respondent filed another 
.~-
Writ Petition challenging the seniority list. The writ petition was dis-
missed by a Single Judge holding that as per Rule lA of Karnataka 
Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 the said Rules were not G 
applicable to a local candidate, in whose case the seniority would count 
only from the date of regularisation. On an appeal by the Respondent, the 
Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment of the Single 
/'· 
Judge and directed that seniority of the Respondent should be reckoned 
from the date of his initial appointment. Aggrieved by this judgment, the 
Department preferred the present appeal. 
H 
l 
267 
268 
SUPR2ME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellants contended that since the respondent was appointed 
B 
to the post of Excise Inspector (Junior) as a local candidate purely on ad 
hoc basis and so he was not entitled to count his ad hoc appointment for 
purposes of seniority. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1. The respondent was appointed as a local· candidate 
through Employment Exchange in view of the specific sanction of the 
Government for such ad hoc appointment. The terms of appointment hi 
the context of sanction of the said posts by the Govetnmeiit dearly 
c 
demonstrat~s that such appointment of the said r~spo~dent and other 
employees in 1968 was ad hoc appointment given to local . candidates 
sponsored by the local Employment Exchange. It Was only on October 26, 
1971, the respondent became eligible to be recruited in .the said Cliis_s IH 
post, 'and such appointment/or regularisation of .h.is ad hor appointment 
was made possible because of the framing of the Ka~atakii State· Civil 
D Se6'ices (Special) Rules; 1970. [278D-E] 
' ' 
. 
. 
. 
.-· 
. 
. 
1.2. The respondent was not entitled to Claim seniority from the date 
of his initial. ~ppoiiitment on ad hoc basis bui he was only entitled to 
claim seni.ority fro.m the date of his subsequent appointment or 
E regularisation under the special rules. Under Rule 3 of the special roles, 
the respondent, having possessed the minimum qualifications prescribed 
by the said special rules for recruitment to Class III Posts and the 
respondent having been appointed on or after January 1, 1965 as a local 
candidate to a Class III post and having put in a continuous service of one 
~ear prior to October 1, 1970 was eligible to be appointed under the said 
F 
spe~ial rules of ·recruitment and the respondent was given such appoint· 
ment with elfect from October 26, 1971. [278F-H; 279A] 
13. The respondent was entitl~d to be treated as direct recruit 
properly made under the said special rules of 1970 only from October 26, 
r• 1971 and the service rendered by him prior to the said date was only on 
,J the basis of ad hoc employment not made in accordance with the rules of 
recruitment. [279A) 
Direct Recntit Class 11 Engineering Officers' Associat~on and others v • 
. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1990 SC 16

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.