Supreme Court of India
Central Council For Res. In Homeopathy vs Bipin Chandra Lakhera & Ors on 20 April, 2011
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2011 SC 44, (2011) 2 GUJ LH 9, (2011) 129 FAC LR 742, (2011) 3 SCT 145, (2011) 2 SERV LJ 418, (2011) 5 ALL WC 4486, 2011 (15) SCC 563, (2011) 4 SERV LR 477, (2011) 86 ALL LR 33, (2011) 5 SCALE 124, (2011) 102 ALL IND CAS 27 (SC), (2011) 102 ALLINDCAS 27
Bench: Markandey Katju, Gyan Sudha Misra
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3286 OF 2007
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN HOMEOPATHY Appellant (s)
VERSUS
BIPIN CHANDRA LAKHERA & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
respondent No. 1. As regards the other respondents in
respect of whom service is complete no one has entered
appearance on their behalf so far.
This Appeal has been filed against the impugned
judgment & order dated 24.03.2004 passed by the High Court
of Sikkim in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 542 of 1998.
The facts have been given in the impugned judgment
and order and hence we are not repeating the same here,
except where necessary.
The short question in this Appeal is whether ad
hoc service of respondent No. 1 from 1984 before his
regularisation with effect from 05.01.1996 can be added for
the purpose of seniority. We are of the opinion that it
cannot.
Admittedly, respondent No. 1 was appointed as
Research Assistant (Homeopathy) in the service of the
appellant on
:1:
purely ad hoc basis by order dated 03.02.1984 till
31.03.1984 or till the post is filled on a regular basis
whichever was earlier. This appointment was done without
any regular selection.
It may be noted that respondent No. 1 herein (Writ
petitioner before the High Court) had not applied for
appointment in response to any advertisement issued by the
appellant. In his application respondent No. 1 stated that
"I have come to know through some reliable sources that
there is a post of Research Assistant lying vacant in the
Central Council for Research in Homeopathy." Accordingly,
respondent No. 1 was offered the post on a purely
ad hoc basis vide order dated 03.02.1984 clearly stating
that his appointment was till 31.03.1984 or till a regularly
selected candidate joins, whichever was earlier. Thus, this
appointment was made without following any procedure. The
tenure was extended by the appellant from time to time.
The post of Research Assistant was advertised in
1986 and respondent No. 1 applied for the post and was
called for an interview before a Selection Committee on
29.06.1987 but was not found suitable. However, he was
continued on ad hoc basis in view of an interim
order passed by the High Court in a writ petition.
:2:
The post was again advertised in 1995 for regular
appointment and respondent No. 1 again applied, and this
time he was successful and given regular appointment with
effect from 05.01.1996.
It has been held by this Court in Ch. Narayana Rao
Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 247, and State
of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Aghore Nath Dey & Ors.,
(1993) 3 SCC 371, that ad hoc service before regularisation
cannot be counted for seniority.
It was contended by learned counsel for respondent
No. 1 that some others similarly situate have been given
retrospective regularisation. This is not correct. No one
has been given benefit of ad hoc service for the purpose of
seniority. The persons mentioned in the writ petition are
those persons who had been selected earlier, whereas
respondent No. 1 had not been selected. Such persons have
been given seniority only from the date of their regular
appointment after selection.
It has been pointed out in paragraph 17 of the
counter affidavit filed by the Council before the High Court
that these persons were given seniority from the date of
their regular appointment after a regular selection. Thus,
Dr. Gautam Rakshit was appointed on ad hoc basis on
:3:
10.08.1987, but thereafter he faced a regular selection and
was selected and given regular appointment on 12.04.1988.
He has been given seniority from 12.04.1988 and not from
10.08.1987. Similar is the case of Dr. (Miss) I.M. Kumar,
Dr. G.K. Mathew and Dr. Mohan Singh. Hence, their cases are
clearly distinguishable.
In view of the decision of this Court in Ch.
Narayana Rao's case (supra), we allow this Appeal and set
aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and
dismiss the writ petition. No costs.
........................
J. (MARKANDEY KATJU) NEW DELHI; ........................J. APRIL 20, 2011 (GYAN SUDHA MISRA) :4: