STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. versus JAGDISH NARAIN CHATURVEDI

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 1011 · Decided: 08-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 8 S.C.R. 1011 
j 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
A 
-
v. 
JAGDISH NARAIN CHATURVEDI 
(Civil Appeal No. 3620 of 2009) 
MAY 8, 2009 
B 
" ~ 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
c 
RAJAS THAN SUB ORD/NA TE OFFICES MINISTER/AL 
STAFF RULES, 1957: 
RAJAS THAN 
ENGINEERING 
SUBORDINATE 
~ 
SEF?VICE (IRRIGATION BRANCH) RULES, 1967: 
4 
D 
WORK CHARGED EMPLOYEES SERVICES RULES, 
1964: 
RAJAS THAN 
AGRICULTURAL 
SUBORDINATE 
SEF?VICE RULES, 1978: 
E 
RAJAS THAN FOREST SUB ORD/NA TE SERVICE 
1 
RULES, 1963: 
RAJAS THAN PANCHAYAT SAMIT/ AND ZILA 
PAl"::?.ISHAD SERVICE RULES, 1959: 
F 
_,. 
RAJASTHAN SECRETARIAT MINISTERIAL SERVICE 
~ 
RULES, 1970: 
Adhoc appointment or appointment on daily wage or work 
charge basis - Whether appointments made to the cadre/ G 
~·> -+ 
senlice in accordance with the provisions contained in the 
recruitment rules contemplated by the relevant Government 
ordi"3rs - Held: Adhoc appointment is always to a post but not 
to the cadre/service and also not made in accordance with the 
1011 
H 
1012 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. 
A provisions contained in the recruitment rules for regular 
" 
appointment - Rajasthan Absorption of Surplus Personnel 
~ 
Rules, 1969, Sections 3(a), 25(4), Ministerial Service Rules, 
Rules, 23, 27 and 28- Constitution of India, Articles 136, 141. 
8 
In these appeals, the basic i~sue that arose for 
consideration of the court wai:; whether adhoc 
appointment or appointments on daily wage or work 
charge basis are appointments made to the cadre/service 
in accordance with the provisions contained in the 
recruitment rules contemplated by the Government 
C orders dated 25.1.1992 and 17.2.1998. 
Allowing the Transfer Petitions and the Civil Appeals 
and disposing of Civil Appeal No.37 43 of 2009, the Court 
0 
HELD: 1. If initially the appointment was a 
substantive appointment, the respondents-writ 
petitioners could have challenged when the order of 
regularization was passed. There was no challenge to the 
order of regularization and benefits therefrom and there 
E was no challenge to the order of regularization in any of 
the cases. If the plea of the respondents-writ petitioners 
is accepted it would mean that in their cases the 
regularization was done long back. There was no 
challenge at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the 
belated approach only for the sake of getting advantage 
F of ad hoc or work charge service cannot be 
countenanced. The present stand that the initial 
appointment was substantive appointment is contrary to 
the factual position because in each case the proficiency 
test was undertaken and the appointment letter shows 
G that the appointment was till selected candidates join. 
[Para 15] [1033-G-H; 1034-A-C] 
State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS 
Association and Anr. (2000 (8) SCC 4; Dr. Chanchal Goyal 
H (Mrs.) v. State of Rajasthan 2003 (3) SCC 485; Santosh 
. ' 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. v. JAGDISH 
1013 
NARAIN CHATURVEDI 
Kumar and Ors. v. G. R. Chawla and others 2003 (10) sec A 
-~ 
513; A.G. Sainath Reddy v. Govt. of A.P. & Ors. 2003 (4) SCC 
- -
625; Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Anr. v. T.K. 
Swyanarayan & Ors. 1997 (6) SCC 766; Gursharan Singh 
and Ors. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Ors. 1996 
(2) SCC 459; Chandigarh Administration and Anr. V. Jagjit B 
Singh and Anr. 1995 (1) sec 745 and Ram Ganesh Tripathi 
-1 
and Ors. V. State of U.P. and Ors. 1997 (1) sec 621, referred 
' 
to. 
2. Even if the proficiency test is passed the question c 
o1f eligibility is of relevance, "when the vacancy occurs". 
So far as daily wage services are concerned there is no 
scale of pay and the lowest figure scale of pay has to be 
given. According to fundamental Rule 9(4), 'cadre' means 
the strength of a service or part of service sanctioned as 
D 
... • 
a separate unit. [Para 16] [1034-C-D] 
I 
Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar 1988 (2) SCC 214, 
ti!!lied on. 
3. In order to become "a member of service" 
E 
candidate must satisfy four conditions, namely {i) the 
appointment must be in a substantive capacity; (ii) to a 
4 
post in the service i.e. in a substantive vacancy; (iii) made 
according to rules; (iv) within the quota prescribed for the 
s;ource. [Para 17) [1034-E-F] 
F 
4. Ad hoc appointment is always to a post but not to 
the cadre/service and is also not made in accordance 
with the provisions contained in the recruitment rules for 
regular appointment. [Para 18] [

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