Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Mr. Vora, learned Counsel while representing the case of the petitioners of Spl.C.A. No. 8943 of 2001 (etc.), has submitted that some of the ad hoc Lecturers are serving for more than 14-15 years. Some of such professors had applied in response to the advertisement published by G.P.S.C. and have been declared successful. Letter written by the Government regarding relaxation of age for Lecturers who are serving on ad hoc basis is considered by the G.P.S.C.. Even than, in view of specific condition in the advertisement, ad hoc Lecturers who have not applied for the post or who are not called for interview, are affected adversely. The persons who were working with the Education Department in the capacity of non-teaching staff member have been selected, but other ad hoc Lecturers are not offered any protection in the 2nd affidavit filed by the State Government and their return to the parent department as non-teaching staff member, would be degradation and they will also not get the protection of pay etc. They have lost all chance of promotions in the department and other advantages, though they are educationally qualified to get appointment as Lecturers in any Government or semi-Government teaching institute as per the norms prescribed by U.G.C. In the present case, no appropriate steps are taken by the State of Gujarat to get the services regularised of the persons who are ad hoc appointees. By pointing out policy decision taken by the Government in the year 1999, in the case of professors and lecturers serving in the Colleges of Ayurvedic Medicines, Mr. Vora has submitted that it would not be proper or justified for the State of Gujarat to say that it cannot get regularisation of ad hoc Lecturers and is bound to make recruitment of such Lecturers through G.P.S.C. only. The case of each ad hoc Lecturers could have been sent to G.P.S.C. for regularisation. Mr. Vora has otherwise adopted arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Harubhai Mehta and has submitted that in case this Court is of the view that no priority can be given to ad hoc appointees against G.P.S.C. selectees, then the ad hoc Lecturers presently working should be treated as a class and there should not be any bifurcation amongst such ad hoc appointees i.e. ad hoc appointees appointed from open general category and ad hoc appointees appointed from amongst the persons serving in the Education Department as teachers and thirdly ad hoc appointees appointed from staff members serving in the Education Department such as Librarian, Laboratory Assistant etc. and while passing the order, the principle of "last cum first go" should be applied and lien theory put forward by the Government in the second affidavit should be held as theory worth not acceptable. According to Mr. Vora, ad hoc Lecturers serving for more than 10 years, had crossed the age limit on the date of advertisement. So, they could not apply for the posts advertised. Even than Lecturers who had applied irrespective of they being over aged, two of them have passed, one is declared failed and one though had applied, had not appeared apprehending that his case would not be considered as he being over aged. The policy decision of the Government relaxing the age has created confused situation. If the finding recorded is against the ad hoc appointees, then policy of relaxing age adopted by the State would positively tilt the balance in favour of the Lecturers who have been appointed earlier in point of time. The grievance of Mr. Vora is that in the reply affidavit filed by the State, there is no formal reply to one of the main contentions raised by the ad hoc appointees where they had submitted that "last cum first go" principle should be made applicable. The policy decision taken by State of Gujarat in the year 1990 (Annex. D in Spl.C.A. No. 8943 of 2001) is the second policy decision. First decision was taken in the year 1969. As per record, on 7-1-1999, it was decided to regularise the services of ad hoc appointees. In the Gazetted cadre of services, Engineers, Lecturers in Ayurvedic Colleges are regularised in the State of Gujarat, cannot adopt different standard in similarly situated contingency. Principle of "fair play" cannot be ignored by the State and in support of his submission, Mr. Vora has drawn attention of the Court on page No. 39 (Annex.C produced in Spl.C.A. No. 8943 of 2001). All formalities before appointing ad hoc Lecturers were taken care of by the State. SC & ST Quota, OBC quota is also considered. Page 43- "No objection certificate" is the relevant document for this purpose. It is submitted that 33 candidates are not permitted to appear. So on one hand, G.P.S.C. has selected candidates who were over-aged and 33 of them are not permitted to appear. While regularising the services of Medical Officers appointed on ad hoc basis, date of appointment has been considered by the State and not for the purpose, age factor of respective candidate was not considered. In more than one decisions, this Court has held that if a person who is serving for pretty long period, is quasi-permanent and cannot be terminated or removed without offering an opportunity of being heard/ All ad hoc Lecturers fall under that category and especially those who have put in services of more than five years. While dealing with Spl.C.A. No. 2070 of 1992, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. D. Shah has directed to regularise the services of the Government servants who had put on service of the period of more than seven years. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in 1978 (15) GLT 115, Mr. Vora has submitted that considering the age and experience, repatriation to the lower cadre would not be justified. If they are repatriated to the lower cadre, though they have gained rich experience and have better qualifications after putting in long service, even would not make them entitled to claim senior scale because as per the policy laid down by various Government resolutions, such senior scale cannot be granted to such candidates repatriated to the lower cadre. University has accepted ad hoc LECTURERS and formal approval has been granted. So, non-regularisation of services of ad hoc appointees ignoring the commitment made in the first affidavit by the State, is not justified. Referring to the decision in the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., reported in AIR 1974 SC 555, Mr. Vora has submitted that ratio of this decision would help the ad hoc appointees.

39. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. and Ors. v. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao and Ors., reported in 1996 (7) SCC 499, it is correctly argued that in the field of service of law, regularisation of ad hoc appointment can be affected only in accordance with rules for direct appointment. The Apex Court was dealing with the matter of regularisation of ad hoc Medical Officer. In Paras 9 & 11 of the judgment, by referring to the case of Dr. A.K. Jain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1987 Supp. SCC 497, the Apex Court has observed in Para 11 that :

40. As per the ratio of this decision college teachers who were serving on ad hoc basis if they fall in the category of qualified candidates, then they ought to have applied and appear in the test conducted by G.P.S.C. and should have secured regularisation. This decision supports submission of Learned Advocate General where he has submitted that this Court cannot straightway direct the Government for regularisation of service of ad hoc Lecturers serving on ad hoc basis deviating regular recruitment procedure which is provided by rules for direct appointment. The same principle has been propounded by the decision in the case of P. Ravindran & Ors. (supra), where the Apex Court has held that "regularisation of ad hoc appointees bypassing process of recruitment through open competition, is not permissible. The Apex Court was dealing with S.L.P. arising from the orders of Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners before the Apex Court were appointed as Lecturers on ad hoc basis and some of them had obtained M. Phil, Ph. D. also. When regular recruitment by G.P.S.C. was conducted, the petitioners had appeared before the Committee, but they were not selected. Subsequently, they filed petition for regularisation of their service. In the impugned order, Tribunal had pointed out that since posts are required to be filled up by recruitment from open market through Commission, the Tribunal has no power to issue directions to regularise service. This decision of the Administrative Tribunal was under evaluation before the Apex Court and the Apex Court held :

41. In the case of Subedar Singh & Anr. (supra), the Apex Court was asked to consider the prayer advanced for regularisation by ad hoc appointees. Illegal or irregular ad hoc appointees had approached the Apex Court and the Apex Court after examining contentions raised, has negatived the plea of such appointees.

42. There is no right to have regularisation unless ad hoc appointees clears the test for procedure of recruitment provided under the rules of recruitment. In the case of Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., reported in JT 1994 (5) SC 378, the Apex Court had negatived the contentions based on the principles of equity. The Apex Court has observed that eligibility and continuous working for howsoever long period should not be permitted to overreach the law. Requirement of rules of selection, through Commission, cannot be substituted by human consideration. Law must take its course. Consequently, the appellant i.e. Dr. Arundhanti was held to be not entitled to claim that she should have been deemed to have regularised as she had been working without break for 9 years. When human consideration used in this judgment deals with element to equity keeping out from the facts in number of petition, where Lecturers appointed on ad hoc basis are serving since long and they were qualified at the relevant point of time when they were appointed on ad hoc basis under the selection method evolved by the Higher Education Department of the State of Gujarat. Though principle reflected in Article 14 of the Constitution is on very high pedestal, but only equity cannot have any role to play. So, arguments mostly based on human consideration and principle of equity or convenience or hardship, is misconceived. Apprehension expressed by Mr. Anjaria is that second affidavit filed in the month of August, 2001 has created fear and apprehension of injustice, and therefore, decision to send all ad hoc Lecturers who were Teachers or members of staff in the education department, needs to be set aside and this Court should hold and direct the State Government that Lecturers at present serving on ad hoc basis who have passed through G.P.S.C. test, should be appointed on regular basis and the ad hoc Lecturers selected from the Teachers or staff members serving with education department, on account of selection of candidates by G.P.S.C. following the procedure for direct recruitment of Lecturer, should be asked to go to respective department on repatriation following the principles of "last cum first go" by treating ad hoc Lecturers as one class. Mr. Anjaria has pointed out that out of 11 petitioners, petitioner No. 8 has been appointed by the Government after his regular selection by G.P.S.C., and therefore, no formal prayer requires to be granted qua this petitioner No. 8 namely Harisinh V. Solanki. The petition, so far as this petitioner No. 8 is concerned, should be treated as disposed of as not pressed. It is further submitted by Mr. Anjaria that appointment of ad hoc Lecturers who have been selected by G.P.S.C. and require to be appointed, the department should be further directed not to treat them as re- or fresh entry in the department. They should be treated continuous and formal break in service should not be given. Pointing out the decision of this Court in Spl.C.A. No. 2843 of 1991 & Group (Coram : M.R. Calla, J.), it is argued that prayer for regularisation was already made in previous petition by the respective petitioners and the same was not granted. So, this type of prayer in the petition preferred by G.P.S.C. selected candidates cannot be granted to the respondents who have approached this Court for the first time praying relief for regularisation or protection of their service by raising other similar contentions, should not be granted such relief and the same should not be negatived for the reasons stated by this Court in the above-cited decision and other decisions in Spl.C.A. No. 2283 of 1990 & Group, dated 12-5-1999 (Coram : S.K. Keshote, J).