Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Reply affidavit was filed on 15.2.2001. The stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit in reply is to the effect that vide order dated 27.1.1987, the petitioner was appointed for a period of one year or till availability of regularly selected candidate from the GPSC, whichever is earlier. It is further stated by the respondents that the petitioner resumed the duty with effect from 16.2.1987. It is further stated that the period of ad hoc appointment was completed on 15.2.1988 from the date of resumption of duty and since the proposal was made to the GPSC to continue the petitioner for a further period of one year was not accepted, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated by order dated 1.9.1990. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred Special Civil Application No. 7142 of 1990 and this Court directed the department to reinstate the petitioner with back wages with effect from 3.9.1990. Pursuant to said order, the petitioner was reinstated with back wages vide order dated 26.4.1993. As stated further in the affidavit, proposal was then made to the GPSC on 19.12.1994 to regularize the services of the petitioner and during that period, the Commission requested the State Government to finalize the Recruitment Rules of the Depot Manager and the Recruitment Rules were published on 13.3.1995. Accordingly, requisition was sent to the GPSC on 2.8.1996. Thereafter, the GPSC recommended name of the petitioner on 4.8.1997 and the petitioner was then appointed vide order dated 1.9.1997. It is further stated in the affidavit that the petitioner was relieved on ad-hoc basis from the post of Depot Manager vide letter dated 4.9.1997 and as per the Government order dated 1.9.1997, the petitioner resumed his duty on 5.9.1997 as a fresh regular candidate. As further stated in the reply affidavit, the services of the petitioner for the purpose of higher grade scale is required to be considered from 5.9.1997 and not from 16.2.1987 because the service of the petitioner from 16.2.1987 to 4.9.1997 has been considered as continuous services for the purpose of pension and leave vide Government Resolution dated 28.3.2000 and the said period was regularized by Government Resolution dated 10.9.1999. It is further stated in the reply that in view of the above facts, as per the provisions made in the Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994, the petitioner is not entitled for the Higher Grade Scale for a period from 16.2.1987 to 4.9.1997 especially when the services of the petitioner for the above said period was regularized for pension and leave benefits and not for the purpose of seniority.

"On a look at the appointment order it clearly appears that the ad-hoc appointment is made for a period of one year or upto the time candidate selected by the GPSC is available, whichever is earlier. Word 'ad-hoc' would mean for the special purpose with respect to the subject or thing or pertaining to or for the sake of this case alone or arranged for this purpose. It can thus be seen that the purpose for appointment to the post, which is permanent, is inbuilt in the appointment order itself. Thus, it can reasonably be said that the petitioner's appointment to the post in question is for a period particular purpose namely for filling in the same till a candidate selected by the GPSC is available. The nature of the post of Depot Manager in the Central Medical Stores Organization is such that it might have been even felt by the Government that the post should be filled in for public cause inter alia into see that sub-standard or expired drugs may not be supplied for being used in the hospitals, save at the cost of human life. It is an admitted position that the recruitment rules have not been framed so far so far that it has not become possible for the respondent No.3 GPSC to make selection of an eligible or suitable candidate. However, it is not that the post in question was filled in by back door method.

Learned Asstt. GP Mr. Dave for the respondents has vehemently argued that in no circumstances, the services rendered by the petitioner for the above said period can be termed as a regular services. He drew the attention of this Court to the initial order of appointment dated 27.1.1987 Annexure-A to point out that the petitioner was appointed purely on ad-hoc basis for one year or till regularly selected candidate is made available through the GPSC, whichever is earlier. He argued that this order clearly reveals that it was by way of stopgap arrangement, the petitioner was appointed for a period of one year or till regularly selected candidate through GPSC is made available, whichever is earlier. Learned AGP Mr.Dave has taken me through order dated 10.9.1999 to point out that this order clearly reveals that the petitioner was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis and resumed his duties on 16.2.1987 and, thereafter, he was regularly appointed through the GPSC by order dated 1.9.1997 pursuant to which, the petitioner reported for duty on5.9.1997 and his period of probation was decided to be reduced and the services rendered by the petitioner for the period between 16.2.1987 to 4.9.1987 was ordered to be regularized. Learned AGP Mr. Dave has taken stand to point out from this order that the petitioner knew that the petitioner was appointed by way of stopgap appointment till regularly selected candidate is made available through GPSC and then he appeared in the selection process conducted by the GPSC for the purpose of appointment on regular establishment and ultimately, the petitioner is regularly appointed with effect from 5.9.1997 on the basis of an order dated 1.9.1997 and, therefore, till the petitioner was regularly appointed through GPSC, the petitioner was not on regular establishment or was not regular appointee but he was just an ad-hoc appointee serving on stopgap arrangement. Learned AGP Mr. Dave has further drawn my attention to the order dated 28.3.2000 whereby the State Government has decided to join the services of the petitioner for the above said period from 16.2.1987 to 4.9.1987 with subsequent regular services for the purpose of pension and leave. Learned AGP Mr. Dave has argued that if the services of the petitioner for the period between 16.2.1987 to 4.9.1987 were to be treated as regular services as submitted by the petitioner, then, it would not have become necessary for the Department to pass the order dated 28.3.2000. Learned AGP Mr. Dave has argued that to give the benefit of the earlier services rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of pension and leave, the Government has passed above said order.

I have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned advocates at length. I have also gone through the record of this petition. From the order dated 27.1.1987, it appears that the the petitioner was appointed purely on ad-hoc basis for a period of one year or till regularly selected candidate through GPSC was made available. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner was purely as stopgap arrangement till regularly selected candidate is appointed through GPSC. The second important aspect which could be gathered from the order dated 10th September, 1999 is to the effect that the judgment rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application NO. 7142 of 1990 is to the effect that the appointment of the petitioner was with a clear intention which was even known to the petitioner that it was by way of stopgap arrangement till regularly selected candidate was available through GPSC and ultimately the petitioner came to be regularly appointed only through GPSC vide order dated 1.9.1997 and the petitioner resumed duty on 5.9.1997. Thus, the petitioner got regularized himself through GPSC vide order dated 1.9.1997. If the petitioner was regular appointee, as canvassed on behalf of the petitioner, then, there was no question of the petitioner again appearing in the selection process undertaken by the GPSC for being appointed on this very post on the regular establishment. The petitioner having accepted this regular appointment through GPSC w.e.f. 5.9.1997, cannot claim that the earlier services rendered by the petitioner should be treated as regular services for the purpose of grant of benefit of Higher Grade Scale. Even from the judgment delivered in the case of petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 7142 of 1990, it is not possible to read that the appointment of the petitioner is treated as regular appointment. At this stage, following observations from that very judgment are required to be taken note of which are thus quoted: