STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus VIJAY SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2012] 10 S.C.R. 356 · Decided: 22-08-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 10 S.C.R. 356 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
v. 
VIJAY SINGH AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5947 of 2012) 
AUGUST 22, 2012 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
Service Law -
Seniority - Ad-hoc appointment of 
C respondents as Masters in different subjects I Physical 
Training Instructor I Hindi Teacher -
Subsequently 
regularized - After regularization, claim of respondents that 
the period of ad-hoc service be counted towards seniority -
Claim not accepted by the department - Respondents filed 
D 
writ petition - High Court held that seniority of the respondents 
be fixed by taking into account their ad hoc service -
Justification - Held: Not justified - Till framing of the 1998 
Rules, appointments to the posts of Masters and Teachers 
were governed by the 1995 Rules - In terms of r. 3 of the 1955 
E 
Rules, only the Director was competent to make appointments 
and after the Selection Board was constituted vide Notification 
dated 28-1-1970, the Director could make appointment only 
on recommendation of the Board - Further in terms of r. 8 of 
the 1955 Rules, .every appointee was required to be placed 
F 
on probation - Respondents were neither appointed by the 
Director (the competent authority) on the recommendations 
of the Board nor they were placed on probation - They were 
appointed on purely ad hoc basis without following the 
procedure prescribed for regular appointment - Mere fact that 
the ad hoc appointments of respondents were preceded by 
G sending requisitions to the Employment Exchanges and 
recommendations by the District Selection Committee cannot 
lead to an inference that they were appointed on regular basis 
- Further, in terms of r. 9 of the 1955 Rules, inter se seniority 
H 
356 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH 
357 
AND ORS. 
was required to be determined by the dates of confirmation A 
while in terms of r. 11 of the 1998 Rules inter se seniority was 
to be determined by the length of continuous service on the 
post - Respondents were appointed on purely ad hoc basis 
and continued to serve as such till regularization of their 
service - Therefore, their seniority could not be fixed either B 
ulr. 9 of the 1955 Rules or r. 11 of the 1998 Rules by counting 
their service from the date of their initial ad hoc appointments 
- Punjab Educational Service, Class Ill, School Cadre Rules, 
1955 - rr. 3, 8 and 9 - Haryana State Education School Cadre 
(Group-CJ Service Rules, 1998 - r.11. 
c 
The respondents were appointed as - Masters in the 
subjects of Science, Maths and Social Studies I Physical 
Training Instructor I Hindi Teacher purely on ad hoc basis 
between 1994 and 1996 by the District Education 
Officers. In furtherance of the policy decision taken by the 
D 
State Government, the services of the respondents were 
regularized w.e.f. 1-10-2003. After regularization of their 
services, the respondents claimed that the period of ad-
h oc service should be counted towards seniority 
because they were recruited on the basis of selection 
E 
made by the District Selection Committee from among the 
candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. 
The department did not accept their plea and in the 
provisional gradation list of the Haryana Education 
Service Class Ill, their names were shown below those 
F 
who were appointed on regular basis prior to 1-10-2003. 
The respondents challenged the provisional 
gradation list in a Writ Petition on the ground that the 
same was discriminatory. In response, the appellants 
G 
pleaded that the Provisional Gradation List was prepared 
in accordance with Rule 11 of the Haryana State 
Education School Cadre (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1998 
and the service rendered by the respondents before 
regularization cannot be taken into consideration for the 
H 
purpose of fixation of seniority. The High Court held that 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 10 S.C.R. 
A the seniority of the respondents be fixed by taking into 
account their ad hoc service and, therefore, the instant 
appeal. 
B 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Till the framing of the Haryana State 
Education School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998, 
the appointments to the posts of Masters and Teachers 
were governed by the Punjab Educational Service, Class 
Ill, School Cadre Rules, 1955. [Para 11] [376-C] 
1.2. A reading of order dated 16.10.1995 issued by 
District Education Officer, Panipat makes it crystal clear 
that even though respondent No.1 w

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