Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"20. The law on the issue of whether the period of ad hoc service can be counted for the purpose of determining seniority has been settled by this Court in multiple cases. In Direct Recruits (supra), a Constitution Bench of this Court has observed:
"13. When the cases were taken up for *35* WP DC PROMOTIONS hearing before us, it was faintly suggested that the principle laid down in Patwardhan case [(1977) 3 SCC 399: 1977 SCC (L&S) 391: (1977) 3 SCR 775] was unsound and fit to be overruled, but no attempt was made to substantiate the plea. We were taken through the judgment by the learned counsel for the parties more than once and we are in complete agreement with the ratio decidendi, that the period of continuous officiation by a government servant, after his appointment by following the rules applicable for substantive appointments, has to be taken into account for determining his seniority; and seniority cannot be determined on the sole test of confirmation, for, as was pointed out, confirmation is one of the inglorious uncertainties of government service depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of substantive vacancies. The principle for deciding inter se seniority has to conform to the principles of equality spelt out by Articles 14 and 16. If an appointment is made by way of stop-gap arrangement, without considering the claims of all the eligible available persons and without following the rules of appointment, the experience on such appointment cannot be equated with the experience of a regular appointee, because of the qualitative difference in the appointment. To equate the two would be to treat two unequals as equal which would violate the equality clause. But if the appointment is made after considering the claims of all eligible candidates and the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with the rules made for regular substantive appointments, there is no reason to exclude the officiating service for purpose of seniority. Same will be the position if the initial appointment itself is made in accordance with *36* WP DC PROMOTIONS the rules applicable to substantive appointments as in the present case. To hold otherwise will be discriminatory and arbitrary.....

(3) The promotion under sub-rule (1) or under sub-

*45* WP DC PROMOTIONS rule (2) shall continue to be provisional until the officer has been considered fit to be continued in the cadre of Deputy Collectors in the review made under rule 12:

Provided that it shall be competent to Government to revert any Deputy Collector even before the completion of the review under rule 12 if his work is considered unsatisfactory or for any other reason considered sufficient by Government for such reversion; and in such cases, the Commission shall be consulted within six months of the reversion."

24. He then draws our attention to the proviso below *50* WP DC PROMOTIONS Rule 10(1), which permits the Government to appoint the Deputy Collectors purely as a stop-gap arrangement, if the final select list is exhausted and the exigencies of administration require the vacancies in that cadre to be filled up immediately. He, therefore, relies specifically on Rule 10(2) and contends that the appointment made as a stop-gap arrangement under the proviso to sub rule (1) of Rule 10, shall be deemed to be a regular provisional appointment under sub-rule (1), only when the officer in question is included in the final select list determined by the Government under Rule 9(7). When the officer appointed as a stop gap arrangement is not included in the final select list, he has to be reverted immediately after such final select list is determined by the Government under Rule 9(7). He then draws our attention to Rule 10(3) by which, the promotion under sub- rule (1) or (2), would continue to be provisional until the officer is considered fit to be continued in the cadre of Deputy Collectors, in the review made under Rule 12.

It was concluded that there was no review of services of the Applicants as was required to be carried out as per *59* WP DC PROMOTIONS Rule 12.

(o) Issue No.7 reads as "How the seniority of Applicants in TA-1 and TA-2 is to be determined under provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1977?"

It was concluded that the impugned seniority list prepared and published by the State, was not in accordance with the relevant provisions under the 1977 Rules. A combined seniority list of DDC and PDC cannot be prepared in accordance with Rule 13, without following the due procedure for regularization of the recruitment of the Applicants and similarly situated other PDC. In the absence of any provision in this regard in the Rules of 1977, the case law may be referred to which permits regularization of recruitment which is irregular ab-initio.