Y. H. PAWAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 14-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

( 
Y.H.PAWAR 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. 
MARCH 14, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA AND 
K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ] 
Service Law : 
A 
B 
Seniority-Reckoning of-Ad-hoc appointment-Coming into force of C 
recmitment mies-Regularisation of service as per mies-Claim of seniority 
from date of initial appointment-Held not permissible-Held seniority 
should be reckoned from the date of regularisation as per statutory mies. 
Excise Commissioner, Kamataka & Anr. v. Sreekanta, [1993) Supp. 3 
sec 53, relied on. 
D 
Direct Recmit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of 
Maharashtra & 01"., [1990) 2 SCC 715, held inapplicable. 
Gumlingaswamy v. State, Application No. 663 of 1989, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6882 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.4.93 of the Karnataka High 
Court in A. No. 1007 of 1993. 
R.S. Hegde and P.P. Singh for the Appellant. 
P. Mahale for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the. Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
E 
F 
G 
Appellant was appointed as a Class III employee on ad hoc basis on 
March 22, 1960, after his name was called from the Employment Exchange, H 
429 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
in the Directorate of Public Health. In 1960, the Ministerial Recruitment 
Rules had come into force but the appellant was not regularised in the 
service. He came to be regularised on May 6, 1968 giving him seniority with 
effect from the date on which the selection was made. The appellant 
challenged the action in 0.A. No. 1007/93 in the Karnataka Administrative 
B 
Tribunal which by the impugned order dated April 30, 1993 dismissed the 
application. Thus this appeal by special leave. 
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that no statutory 
rules were in existence when he was appointed. Government issued orders 
that if the appointments were made by the Government or with the 
C sanction of the Government the appointments would be regular appoint-
ments. Therefore, he must he deemed to have been appointed on regular 
basis with effect from the initial date of appointment. His seniority has thus 
to be reckoned from that date. It is contended, on the other hand, by 
learned counsel for the respondents that at the relevant time no regular 
D recruitment was sought to be made. Local candidates were appointed on 
ad hoc basis. After the statutory Rules came to be made, their services have 
been regularised with effect from the date of coming into force of the 
Rules. The action taken by the Government was upheld by the Administra-
tive Tribunal following decision in Gurnlingaswanty v. State, (Application 
No. 663 of 1989) which was followed in this petition. Tht;refore, when the 
E earlier candidates have been regularised according to the statutory Rules, 
the appellant cannot claim higher rank. 
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view 
of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recrnit 
F Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 
[1990] 2 sec 715 where appointment was made on regular basis, the 
seniority was required to be determined with effect from the initial date of 
appointment. We find no force in the contentions. As seen, the appoint-
ments are made on ad hoc basis without conducting any competitive 
examination. As and when vacancy had arisen local candidates were called 
G from Employment Exchange and were appointed. Therefore, the appoint-
ments cannot be considered to have been made on regular basis. When the 
Rules came to be made, all the appointments are sought to be regularised. 
The sanction given by the Government for such an appointment is only to 
enable the candidates to continue till the statutory Rules are made to 
H regularise the services. 
Y.H. PAW AR v. STATE 
431 
This Court in Excise Commissioner, Kamataka & Anr. v. V. Sreekanta, A 
[1993] Supp. 3 SCC 53, in similar circumstances had considered the effect 
of such an appointment in paragraph 14 which reads thus : 
"Aft.er giving our anxious consideration to the respective conten-
tions of the parties it appears to us that the writ petitioner/respon-
B 
dent, Sri V. Sreekanta, was appointed as a local candidate through 
Employment Exchange in view of the specific sanction of the 
Government for such ad hoc appointment. The terms of appoint-
ment in the context of sanction of the said posts by the G

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