FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA versus THANESWAR KALITA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 516 · Decided: 06-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA 
v. 
THANESWAR KALITA AND ORS. ETC. 
MARCH 6, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Service Law 
Seniority-Adhoc appointment-Appointment de hors the Rules-Con-
C tinuance on service for a long time--Regularisation-Adhoc period cannot be 
counted towards seniority. 
The respondents were appointed on adhoc basis de hors the rules. 
They continued for a long time due to non-availability of the direct recruit 
candidates. In petitions filed by the respondents, the High Court directed 
D the appellant to treat the entire period of adhoc service of the respondents 
on regular basis entitling them to seniority and other benefits. Against the 
decision of the High Court appeals were preferred in this Court. 
E 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1. If the appointments are not made in accordance with rules, 
though the appointees might have continued for a ling time, the entire 
· 
period of service would be fortuitous and so would not be counted towards 
seniority. The respondents were not promoted according to rules. Though 
they have continued for a long time, the entire length of service should be 
F considered as fortuitous ,and should not be counted towards their 
seniority. The High Court, therefore, was clearly in error in directing to 
treat their entire service as on regular basis. [517-E-F-518-A] 
The Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Association and Ors. v. State 
G of Maharashtra, AIR (1990) SC 1607, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4029-30 
of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.5.1991 and 3.7.9_f--0f the 
H Assam High Court in C.R. No. 793/89 & 4466 of 1991. 
· 
516 
' 
F.C.I. v. T.KALITA 
517 
V.C. Mahajan and K.R. Nagaraja for the Appellant. 
A 
r 
S.K. Nandy for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
B 
We have heard the counsel on both the sides. These appeals arise 
/ > 
from the orders of the High Court of Guwahati dated 15.5.1991 and 
3.7.1992 in Civil Rule Nos. 793/89 & 4466/91. The ·Division Bench of the 
....(, 
High Court directed the appellants to treat the entire period of ad hoc c 
service of the respondents on regular basis and further declared that they 
must be deemed to have been in continued service as Assistant Managers 
w.e.f. 30th August, 1973 and are entitled to seniority and also to other 
benefits. Calling in question these orders, these appeals have been filed. 
I 
It is not in controversy that the respondents were appointed on ad D 
hoc basis de hors the rules. In view of the judgment of the Constitution 
,, 
Bench of this Court in The Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. and 
Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1990) SC 1607 and several decisions 
following that, it is settled law that if the appointments are made according 
to rules, though initially on ad hoc basis, and are continued for long time, E 
on regularising the service, the entire period of temporary service would 
be counted for seniority. If such appointments are in excess of quota, the 
officiating period would not be treated for seniority, as the appointments 
then become fortuitous; and the persons appointed in excess of the quota 
, 
/ 
are not entitled to count the entire period of service for seniority. The 
condition precedent being that the appointments are made within quota F 
and are made in accordance with rules. In other words, if the appointments 
"'( 
were not made in accordance with rules, though the appointees might have 
continued for a long time, the entire period of service would be fortuitous 
and so would not be counted towards seniority. 
In this case, admittedly, the promotion of the respondents was not in G 
accordance with rules; but they were delayed on ad hoc basis due to the 
--.......... 
exigencies of non-availability of the direct candidates. Thereby, it is clear 
that the respondents were not promoted according to rules. In other words, 
they were promoted de hors the rules. Though they have continued for a 
long time, the entire length of service should be considered as fortuitous H 
518 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 2 S.C.R. 
A and should not be counted towards their seniority. The High Court, there-
fore, was clearly in error in directing to treat their entire service as on 
regular basis. 
The appeals are allowed accordingly. It is needless to mention that 
from the date of the regularisation to service as per rules, the respondents 
B are entitle
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.