Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It is not in dispute that some employees who were appointed after 31st of August, 1984 were given the seniority over and above the petitioner. The petitioner has been denied seniority on the ground that his earlier appointment was ad hoc.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on number of decisions. The decision reported as Chief of Naval Staff v. G. Gopalakrishna Pillai, (1996) 1 SCC 521, is a decision for the proposition that if ad hoc appointment is continued without any interruption, then benefit cannot be given for seniority purposes when regular appointment is made. Excise Commissioner, Karnataka v. V. Sreekanta, AIR 1993 SC 1564, is a decision for the proposition that if there are no rules and regularisation is done after framing of rules, then ad hoc period of service is not to be counted for seniority purposes. Food Corporation of India v. Thaneswar Kalita, (1995) 3 SCC 342 is an authority for the proposition that ad hoc promotion cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of giving seniority if the rules do not permit such a course to be adopted.

5. I am of the opinion that the aforementioned judgments would not be attracted to the present case.

6. In the instant case, there are no rules governing service conditions. Reliance has been placed on the M. P. Regularisation of ad hoc appointment Rules, 1986. These rules were framed with a view to regularise the service of civil servants holding civil post. The petitioner is an employee of State Agricultural Marketing Board, Bhopal. The Board is not shown to have adopted the aforementioned Rules.