LexP. C. PATEL AND ORS. versus SMT. T. H. PATHAK AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I 677 P. C. PATEL AND ORS. v. SMT. T. H. PATHAK AND ORS. September 22, ! 976 [A. N. RAY, CJ., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SI·IINGHAL, JJ.J Civil service-Seniority-Irregular recruitme11t-Reg11/arisat io11-A ppoint_ ments through Public Service Commission-Recr111tme11t throu[!h centrnltscd recruitn1ent sclzenie. The respondents Nos. 1 to 10 who were Writ "Petitioners in the High Court, were appointed as clerks between June, 1963 to January, 1967 on temporary basis and were promoted to higher posts thereafter. They c.ontcnded that at th_c relevant time there was no rule or order requiring that nppomtrnents to thell" posts shall be made through Public Service Commission: The Gujarat Gov.ern- ment issued Gujarat Non-Se_cretariat Clerks,. Clerk Typists _and Typtsls (Dtrect Recrnitment Procedure) Rules, 1970. Thereafter, by resolutwn dated 15-4-1971, it was stated that seniority of the candida·tes who were to be selected for the posts of Clerks, Clerk typists and typists shall be determined as if_ their allot- ment or appointment was from 17-4-1970 trrespective of the questi~n whether they were in service or not, and that their nam~s shall b~ arranged. in a common seniority list in order of merit in accordance with the pnnc1ples Jaid down m the Rules. The Writ petitioners filed a Writ Petition in the Gujarat High Court feeling aggrieved by the said 1970 Rules and the 1971 resolution. . The Writ Petitioners contended thrut the Government should be direct~d to treat their entire service as regular and that their seniority should he fixed on the basis of the dates on which they had joined their respective posK The State Government in its counter affidavit po'nted out that the Writ Petitioners were not recruited through proper channel; that even though the centralised recruitn1ent scheme was in. existence and \Vas appli.:able with efrect from January, 1963, the Writ Petitioners did not com~ through ti1e employment exchanges that their appointments were by way of a stop-gap arrangement. The State, however, admitted in its affidavit that the Writ Petiti0•1or' were not under the purview of the Gujarat Public Service Commission at the time of their appointment. The State contended that the Writ Petitioners were irregularly appointed and that 1970 Rules were framed on humanitarian considerations to regularise their appointments and that, their seniority could not be counted from the dates of their appointment and could be counted only from 1 'lth April, 1970. B c D E F The High Court came to the conclusion that the Centralised Recruitment Scheme was not applicable when the Writ Petitioners were appointed and that the posts were also not within the purview of the GujaTat Public Service Com- mission until March, 1969. The High Court therefore, held that the appoint- ments of the petitioners were regular and were not required to be regularised under the 1970 Rules. It also held that the State Government had no power to .issue the circular under rnle 30 of the Rules for allotment and fixation of a G seniority and that the instrnctions contained in the resolution of 197 l were not applicable to the Writ Petitioners. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, struck down the seuiority list, and directed the State Government and the Direc- tor of Civil Supplies to treat the services of the petitioners as regular from the dates when they were appointed initially and not to apply the instructi::Jns. con- tained in the resolution of 1971 to compute their seniority. The appellants, who claimed to have been appointed regularly from the begin- ning and who contend that the appointments of the writ petitioners were irregular H filed appeal by Special Leave. The appellants contended : - 1. That the 'initial appointment of the Writ Petitioners was irregular, being in violation of the centralise_d recruitment scheme, since the office A B c D 678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 1 S.C.R. of. the Director of Civil Supplies became a part and parcel of the Directorate of Civil Supplies. and that the centralised recruitment scheme was applicable to the recruitment of the Writ Petitioners. 2. The appointment to the posts held by the Writ Petitioners were re- quired to be made through Public. Service Commission, but as they were not made through P.S.C. the appointments were irregular. Dismissing the appeal with a modification, HELD: 1. The High Court has rightly negatived both the contentions o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.