RASHI MANI MISHRA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 435 · Decided: 28-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
435
RASHI MANI MISHRA AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 10788 of 2016)
JULY 28, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service law: Seniority – Determination of – Counting of ad
hoc services –Held: Seniority is to be counted only from the date of
their regularisation and the services rendered by the ad hoc
appointees prior thereto, i.e., from the date of their initial
appointments is not to be counted for the purpose of seniority – On
facts, Assistant Engineers given ad hoc appointment in the year 1985
– No consultation with the UPSC and as such there was no
recommendation by the UPSC – Regularisation of services as per
the 1979 Rules in the year 1989 and thereafter they were selected
by the Selection Committee constituted under the 1979 Rules–As
such their substantive appointments can be said to be only from the
date of their regularisation/appointment made in the year 1989 –
Thus, the seniority is to be counted only from 14.12.1989, the date
of their regularisation– Services rendered by the ad hoc appointees
prior thereto, i.e., from the date of their initial appointments in the
year 1985 is not to be counted for the purpose of seniority, vis-à-
vis, the direct recruits appointed prior to 1989 – Uttar Pradesh
Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview
of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 – Uttar Pradesh
Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview
of the Public Service Commission) (Second Amendment) Rules, 1989
– Uttar Pradesh Rural Engineering (Group ‘B’) Service Rules, 1993
– Uttar Pradesh Government Servants’ Seniority Rules, 1991.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The respective ad hoc appointees were initially
appointed in the year 1985 vide office memo dated 12.06.1985.
They were appointed on the basis of the recommendations of the
Selection Committee constituted for ad hoc appointment vide
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 435
435
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
436
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
G.O. No. 1033/84/38-1- 3532/84 dated 29.01.1985. They were
appointed on ad hoc basis on the temporary post of Assistant
Engineer in Rural Engineering Service Department. In the said
office memo, it was specifically mentioned that the candidates
will have no right to claim seniority in future on the basis of the
said order of appointment (as ad hoc appointee). It appears that
thereafter within a period of four years from their appointment as
ad hoc, their services came to be regularised under the 1979
Rules, extended from time to time and they were appointed and
their services were regularised vide notification dated 14.12.1989.
At this stage, it is required to be noted that their services were
regularised vide notification dated 14.12.1989 as per the 1979
Rules, as extended in 1989. Therefore, the contesting
respondents-ad hoc appointees, having taken the benefit of the
1979 Rules were bound by the conditions mentioned in the 1979
Rules. Even it is not the case on behalf of the contesting ad hoc
appointees that they are not governed by the 1979 Rules. Rules
1979 provide for regularisation of ad hoc appointees. Thus, as
per the 1979 Rules, any person who was directly appointed on ad
hoc basis and continued in service and possessed requisite
qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of
such ad hoc appointment and has completed three years
continuous service shall be considered for regular appointment
in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the
basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment
is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service
rules or order. It further provides that for the purpose of
regularisation, the appointing authority shall constitute a Selection
Committee and thereafter the appointing authority shall prepare
an eligibility list of candidates, arranged in order of seniority, That
thereafter the Selection Committee shall prepare the list of
selected candidates and the names in the list being arranged in
the order of seniority and forward to the appointing authority and
only thereafter the appointing authority shall make an appointment
from the list prepared under sub-ule (6) in the order in which
their names stand in the list. As per rule 6, such appointments
were deemed to be under the relevant service rules etc. Thus,
the appointments on regularisation of their services are made
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
437
only after their names are reco

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