Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. In the light of assertions made in the pleading of writ petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner's services have been regularised on 18.8.1999, therefore, should be treated to be regularised with effect from the date of his initial appointment on the post of Assistant teacher on ad hoc basis and at any rate since the regularisation of his services has been done under Section 33-C of the Act 1982 which was enforced by Government Order dated 20.4.1998, therefore, his services shall be treated to have been regularised from the aforesaid date, and being qualified for the post of Lecturer in English, he has also rendered 5 years continuous service on the next lower post of L.T. Grade teacher, therefore, he was fully eligible for promotion on the post of English Lecturer on the date of occurrence of vacancy i.e. on 30.6.1998. In case the petitioner would have been promoted well within time, there would have been no occasion to promote Sri Pritam Singh and Sri Ved Pal on the post of lecturer in Economics and Civics in the institution in the aforesaid 50% quota for promotion. While placing reliance upon Rule 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Services Selection Boards Rules 1998, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the words 'five years continuous regular service' should not be equated or confused with five years continuous substantive service in the next lower grade. The requirement of law would be satisfied on mere completion of five years continuous regular service which would also include ad hoc services. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon certain decisions of this Court rendered in Ram Swaroop v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 (3) E.S.C. 155 (All), Committee of Management, B.D. Bajoria Inter College, City and District Saharanpur and Ors. v. Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. and Ors. 2001 (3)E.S.C. 1326 (All), Nand Kishore v. Joint Director of Education, Allahabad Region, Allahabad and Ors. 2003 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C. 1570 and Krishna Pal v. Director of Education (Madhyamik) U.P. and Ors. decided on 20.7.2006

10. Having heard rival submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of records, the first question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether in given facts and circumstances of the cast, the services of petitioner shall be treated to be regularised with effect from the date of his initial appointment on ad hoc basis or with effect from the date on which the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Amendment Ordinance 1998 was promulgated by Governor and published in U.P. Gazette dated 20th April 1998 or with effect from the date on which the order of regularisation of petitioner's services on the post of Assistant teacher in L.T. Grade has been passed by the Competent Authority?

39. In view of aforesaid settled legal position, I have no doubt in my mind that expressions 'regular service' used in the Rule 14(1) of 1998 Rules connotes the services rendered by regularly or substantively appointed teacher. It does not connote continuous uninterrupted service which may include the ad hoc service, therefore, it should not be equated with continuous uninterrupted service which may include the ad hoc service. In common parlance, regular appointment means, appointment made after following procedure prescribed for substantive appointment, whereas contrary to it, ad hoc, officiating and temporary appointments are normally made without following procedure prescribed for regular appointment, instead thereof such appointments are usually made dehorse the rules of recruitment on stop gap arrangement basis in exigencies of service either for fixed period or to be ended till regular or substantive appointment on the post. However, if the officiating or temporary appointments are made after following the procedure prescribed under rules of recruitment, such appointments are termed as substantive appointment and are regular in nature as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Baleshwar Das's case (supra). In case of teachers appointed after due process of selection by following procedure prescribed under the Act 1982 and Rules framed thereunder, the appointments are termed as substantive or regular appointment. It is no doubt true that ad hoc appointment of teacher is also made under the provisions of Act and Rules framed thereunder but the procedure for ad hoc appointment substantially and qualitatively differs from the procedure of regular appointment and both the procedures cannot be equated with each other. The ad hoc appointee does not independently hold the post for indefinite period, instead thereof he holds the post for definite period and for the period only till the regular appointment is made on said post. It is also true that after regularisation of services of ad hoc appointee his appointment becomes substantive appointment but not earlier to such regularisation. As defined under Rule 2 (d) of 1998 Rules, the services of ad hoc teacher becomes substantive only after regularisation of such services but such teacher cannot be held to be substantively appointed prior to the date of order of regularisation of his services. Therefore, the services rendered by ad hoc teacher cannot be held to be "regular service" and the same cannot be taken into account in computation of 5 years continuous regular service and services rendered by such ad hoc teacher after regularisation of his services can only be counted for the purpose of Rule 14(1) of 1998 Rules. In other words service rendered by ad hoc teacher prior to the date of his regularisation cannot be tagged with the services rendered by him after regularisation, instead thereof such ad hoc services shall be excluded for computation of 5 years continuous regular service.

49. Thus, aforesaid discussion leaves no room for doubt to hold that the services rendered by the petitioner on ad hoc basis from the date of his joining as L.T. grade teacher w.e.f. 3.11.1992 till his regularisation on 18.8.1999 cannot be taken into account for computing his 5 years continuous regular service for the purposes of Rule 14(1) of 1998 Rules. It is only on or after 18.8.1999, on his regularisation on the post of L.T. grade teacher his services can be counted for continuous regular service to be considered for his promotion on the post of Lecturer under existing Rule 14(1) of 1998 Rules. Therefore, 1 have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for promotion either on the date of occurrence of vacancy of English Lecturer on 30.6.1998 or on the first day of year of recruitment i.e. on 1.7.1997 on account of occurrence of vacancy on 30.6.1998 or on the first day of subsequent year of recruitment i.e. 1st July 1998 and thereafter till completion of 5 years continuous regular service subsequent to his regularisation. It is not in dispute that till he completes 5 years continuous regular service, 50% quota of promotion on the post of lecturer was already filled in the institution. Therefore, on this count also the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.