Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhartendu Sharma vs The State Of Haryana And Anr. on 24 January, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1995)110PLR502
Author: Ashok Bhan
Bench: Ashok Bhan
JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhan and Satpal, JJ.
1. The point involved in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner who was appointed purely on ad hoc basis for a maximum period ending on 2,10.1994 can continue on the appointment after this date till a duly selected candidate from the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as SSSB) is made available. This writ petition arises out of the following facts;
2. Petitioner who is a resident of Haryana was appointed as Instrument Mechanic Instructor at Industrial Training Institute vide order Annexure PI dated 9.3.1994 in the grade of Rs. 1400-40-1600-5C-2300-EB-60-2600 plus usual allowance admissible under the rules purely on adhoc basis for a maximum period ending on2.10.1984 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter of appointment. Under the terms and conditions, the services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason. Petitioner in pursuance to the appointment letter Annexure P1 joined the service on 15.3.1994.
3. It is averred in the petition that the work and conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory and the post against which the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis is a permanent post; that the SSSB has advertised the post and applications have been invited for appointment on regular basis; that no appointment has been made so far. Apprehending that the petitioners' appointment would come to an end by afflux of time on 240.1994 and that he may not be given extention, filed the present writ petition on 17.9.1994 with a prayer that the petitioner be allowed to continue in service till a regularly appointed candidate is made available to man the post.
4. Notice of motion was issued. Written statement has been filed. In the written statement filed, the defence taken is that the petitioner was appointed for a fixed. tenure ending on 2.10.1994 and after expiry of the fixed tenure he had no legal right to continue on the said post and that the process to select a candidate on regular basis has already been put into motion.
5. Counsel for the parties have been heard.
6. Ad hoc appointments made without regular selection have been repeatedly deprecated and frowned upon by the Courts. The concept of ad hoc appointment was necessitated on account of exigencies of situations like the non availability of regularly selected incumbent; process of selection being time consuming and urgent time bound work needing immediate appointment and such other exigencies. Normally speaking, such ad hoc appointments should not go beyond a particular duration of time, Adhoc appointment should not confer any right on ad hoc employee to continue beyond the time specified. The continuation of an ad hoc employee by the State by giving extensions in the ad hoc appointment where the need is permanent or under the directions of the Court, such as in the present case, would be unjust. No right vests in an employee appointed on ad hoc basis to continue on the post occupied by him and his term would come to an end with the terms of period given in the letter of appointment.
7. It is unfortunate that for the last two decades authorities have been making ad hoc appointments without following the procedure of regular selection and giving extensions after extensions for a considerable duration thereby creating vested right in equity in the employees to continue on the post. This right in equity was recognised which ultimately resulted in regularisation of the services of the ad hoc employee under the orders of the Court. One of the reason being that the ad hoc employee may not get a job having become over age. Various State Governments framed policies for regularisation of services of ad hoc employees who had put in a particular number of years of services although these employees had not been selected by a regular procedure for selection.
8. Cases are coming up before this Court where regularly selected candidates are not being given appointments on the ground that services of ad hoc appointees have been regularised under the policy framed by the Government or under the orders of the Court against the post for which they have been selected. This unfortunate situation needs to be remedied. Ad hoc appointment should/can be made for a limited period and in the meantime process should be initiated to make appointments on regular basis. Ad hoc appointment should not exceed a reasonable period and normally within the fixed period, process for selection on regular basis should be initiated and appointments made after due selection. The appomtments made on ad hoc basis without considering the claim of other eligible candidates would negate the provisions of the Constitution of India and various other statutory provisions made under other Acts wherein it has been provided that State shall not act discriminately or arbitrarily while making appointments to the public offices. Equal opportunity has to be provided to all the citizens of this Country in the matters of appointment to the public offices. If the appointments are allowed to be made on ad hoc basis then it acts discriminately as well as amounts to denial of equal opportunity to equally situated persons.
9. The point in issue as to whether a person who had been appointed on ad hoc basis for a fixed period can continue till a regular appointed candidate is made available after due selection was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Sant Ram Bhal v. The State of Haryana and Anr. (FB), 1992(1) RSJ 761, the point was answered in the negative. It was held as under:-
"3. A temporary Government servants has no right to hold a post. His services can be terminated without assigning any reason,either under the term of the contract providing for such termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating terms and conditions of temporary Government servants.
Termination of services simplicitor does not visit him with any evil consequences. In Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, 1958 SCR 828, which still holds the field, the view expressed by the Constitution Bench is that evil consequences do not include the termination of services of a temporary Government servant in accordance with the terms and conditions of service. This view has been subsequently reiterated in Jagdish Mitter v. The Union of India, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 449, and State of Punjab v. Shri Shukh Raj Bahadur, 1968(3) SCR 234. All these authorities have again been referred to considered and applied in a recent decision by the Supreme Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, 1991(1) SLR.606. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.N. Singh (as his Lordship then was), while delivering the judgment observed:
"Under the service jurisprudence a temporary employee has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated in accordance with the relevant service rules and the terms of the contract of service."
We may also refer to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Omprkash Sharma v. State of Haryana 1981(1) Services Law Reporter 314. In that case also, the appointment was for a period of six months and on ad hoc basis and the services were liable to be terminated without any prior notice. After referring to a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in S.K. Verma v. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 Punjab an Haryana 149 the Division Bench held that an ad hoc employee has no right to hold the post till the termination of his services for a valid justification and his services are liable to be terminated even otherwise without any prior notice in terms of his employment. In our opinion, the decision of the Supreme Court in Kaushal Kishore Shukla's case (supra) and the decision of this Court in Om Parkash Sharma' case (supra) furnish a complete answer to the first question."
"4. As we have seen above, the petitioner's appointment on promotion as Veterinary and Live stock Development Assistant, Vide Annexure P2 was only on ad hoc basis and for period of nine months or until such time as the recommendee of the S.S.S.Board Joins, whichever is earlier. The petitioner's services in terms of the appointment order could be terminated without assigning any reasons or without any notice. Apparently, therefore, in terms of that order, the petitioner had no right to the post of the Veterinary and Livestock Development Assistant and that appointment could be terminated on the expiry of nine months or on the joining of the recommendee of the S.S.S. Board and without assigning any reason. This is what exactly has been done vide Annexure P3. The petitioner, in our opinion had acquire no right to hold that post.
The controversy in this case thus stands concluded by the Full Bench in Sant Ram Bahl's case (supra) and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this score alone.
11. Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 3037 of 1994 {Dr. Subedar Singh Arya and Ors. v. The State of Haryana and Ors.), decided on 12.5.1994, to contend that the petitioner has a right to continue in service till a regularly selected candidate is made available for appointment. The facts of that case, were different from the present case. In that case, the petitioners were appointed after selection by a departmental selection committee and no duration of add hoc appointment was mentioned. No steps had been taken to fill in the posts on regular basis whereas in the present case, the petitioner was appointed for the maximum period ending on 2.10.1994. A request has already been sent to the SSS for selecting a candidate on regular basis for the post against which the petitioner is working. Dr. Subedar Singh Arya's case (supra) would not be of any help to the case of the petitioner which is clearly distinguishable on the facts pointed out above.
12. The other case on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner is a Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 8977 of 1994 titled as Sunil Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., decided on 20-7-1994. In that case, appointments had been made after due selection by the departmental committee. But their lordships held that the condition in the letter of appointment limiting the tenure of appointment to a specified period to be bad as the appointment had been made after selection by a selection committee; after con- sideration of the claim of other eligible persons. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed not by the process of selection after considering his claim vis-a-vis the other eligible candidates but through employment exchange on a requisition sent by the department to the Employment Exchange to recommend the names of candidates duly qualified for the post. It seems that unfortunately, the decision of the Full Bench in Sant Ram Bahal's case (supra) had not been brought to the notice of their lordships.
13. Counsel appearing for the petitioner then argued that the authorities may appoint another person on ad hoc basis to the post occupied by the petitioner. Being conscious of the fact that sometimes appointing authorities replace one ad hoc appointee with another, in other words, replacing one favorite by another favorite, we direct that in case appointment to the post in question is to continue on ad hoc basis then the petitioner shall be appointed to that post as an ad hoc employee instead any other candidate till a July selected candidate is made available.
14. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this petition as the petitioner has no right to continue to the Post after the expiry of his term of appointment ending on 2.10.1994. Respondents are directed to get the selection of the regular candidate expedited and make the appointment on regular basis of a candidate who is duly selected. No costs.