SANTOSH KUMAR AND ORS. versus G.R. CHAWLA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 10-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SANTOSH KUMAR AND ORS. 
v. 
G.R. CHAWLA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 
[M.B. SHAH AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
U.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (for posts within the 
purview of the PSC) Rules, 1979: Rules 4 and 7. 
Inspector of Drugs-Direct recruit Inspectors and regularised 
Inspectors-Inter-se seniority between-Public Service Commission sent 
recommendations to State Government giving a list of candidates including 
A 
B 
c 
ad hoc drug inspectors-However, direct recruits appointed prior to 
regularisation of ad hoc Drug Inspectors-Held: The ad hoc drug D 
inspectors who were regularised subsequent to the appointment of direct 
recruits are not entitled to claim seniority over direct recruits on the basis 
of continuous officiation-UP. Inspector of Drugs (Services) Rules, 1980. 
The appellants were temporarily appointed as Inspectors of E 
Drugs on ad hoc basis purely on stopgap arrangements. Subsequently, 
an advertisement for direct recruitment for the post of Inspector of 
Drugs was issued by the State Public Service Commission (PSC) under 
U.P. Inspector of Drugs (Services) Rules, 1980. The State PSC sent its 
recommendation to the State Government giving a list of candidates 
in order of merit, which also included the appellants. However, the F 
appellants found their names in the said merit list below the respondents-
direct recruits. The appellants, therefore, persuaded the State 
Government to initiate their regularisation under the U.P. 
Regularisation of ad hoc Appointments (for posts within the purview 
of the PSC) Rules, 1979. However, the direct recruits were appointed G 
as Inspectors of Drugs prior to the regularisation and appointment of 
the appellants. Subsequently, the State Government issued a seniority 
list in which the appellants were allowed to steal a march over the 
respondents who became members of the service prior to the appellan\:s. 
The respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging H 
561 
562 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A the said seniority list, which was allowed. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the entire 
length of service of the appellants was entitled to be considered for the 
purpose of seniority; and that the ad hoc appointments must be treated 
B as substantive appointments for the purpose of seniority. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The appellants/writ petitioners who are ad hoc 
appointees are not entitled to claim seniority on the basis of continuous 
C officiation. (563-F] 
Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of 
Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715, referred to. 
D 
1.2. The respondents-direct recruits were appointed prior to the 
regularisation of the services of the appellants and, therefore, the 
appellants are not entitled to be regularised prior to the appointment/ 
confirmation of the respondents under Rule 4 of the U.P. Regularisation 
of Ad hoc Appointments (for posts within the purview of the PSC) 
Rules, 1979. [567-G-H) 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11961-
11963 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.5.94 of the Allahabad High 
p Court in W.P. Nos. 1897/80, 731/91 and 309 of 1994. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 11964 and 11965 of 1996. 
G 
Bhaskar P. Gupta, Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, 
Vivek Vishnoi, Punit Dutt Tyagi, Vinay Garg, Ms. Deepam Garg, Prakash 
Singh, Ashok K. Srivastava, J.M. Sharma (NP), Shrish Kumar Mishra and 
Irshad Ahmed (NP) for the appearing parties. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
•
-
SANTOSH KUMAR v. G.R. CHAWLA [LAKSHMANAN, J.) 
563 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : The questions involved in these A 
appeals are identical and they are being disposed of by this common 
judgment. 
These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 
06.05.1994 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ B 
Petition Nos. 731of1991, 2:il of 1994, 309of1994, 1897 of 1980 and 
1663 of 199!. 
The facts, in short, are as follows:-
According to the appellants, they were eligible for appointment to the C 
posts in question and the appointments were made on the basis of selection 
made pursuant to the public advertisement and after considering claims of 
all eligible candidates. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the 
entire length of service of the appellants is entitled to be considered for 
the purpose of seniority as held by the Constitution

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