Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. She stated that the appointment / regularisation / confirmation of ad hoc appointees is valid as they were appointed as per the statutorily permissible procedure, albeit an alternative method was followed at the time of their appointment / regularisation. In fact, she heavily relied upon Recruitment Rules to contend that the Recruitment Rules provides for appointment through Employment Exchange in case of any exigencies and the ECI had to regularise the ad hoc appointees for valid reasons. She submitted that there is no arbitrariness in the appointment / regularisation / confirmation of the ad hoc appointees.

37. The question would be, whether the direct recruits have locus standi to challenge the regularisation / regular appointment of ad hoc appointees, when they were not even on the rolls of the ECI. The answer to this question which would have a bearing on the issue of seniority, which was the subject matter of the challenge before the Tribunal has to be in the negative. This we say so because when the direct recruits were not even appointed in the ECI/Service, surely they could not have challenged the regularisation of ad hoc appointees, as no rights of their were affected at the relevant time. Moreover, the petition cannot be construed as a Public Interest Litigation challenging the regularisation of the ad hoc appointees, as the same was filed before Tribunal.

39. In any case, there is no dispute to the proposition of law that seniority in the grade shall be from the date when the regular appointment has been made and there is no doubt that seniority to the ad hoc appointees is given in the grade of LDC from the date of regularisation / regular appointment between the years 1995-1998.

40. No doubt, heavy reliance has been placed by the counsel appearing for the direct recruits on the recruitment rules to contend; (1) that the regularisation of the ad hoc appointees was not in terms of the recruitment rules, as it contemplates that ad hoc appointment must be till the period of regular appointment is made through SSC and (2) the Rules do not stipulate the process of regularisation of ad hoc appointees and hence the ad hoc appointees could not have been regularised.

42. We are afraid such a relief, in the facts of this case, more so in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be granted.

43. Having said that, in so far as the final conclusion of the Tribunal in setting aside the seniority list dated June 11, 2004 is concerned, we are of the view that the Tribunal could not have set aside the seniority list dated June 11, 2004, when it did not interfere with the regularisation of ad hoc appointees. The regularisation shall determine the seniority in a grade, which according to this Court would be the date when the ad hoc appointees were regularised in temporary capacity in the years 1993-1996 with two years of probation, which they cleared before the appointment of the direct recruits.