Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. In State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, JT 1995 (5) SC 179 : AIR 1992 SC 2130, the question regarding regularisation of ad hoc appointees came up for consideration before the Supreme Court. It was held that normal rule would be regular appointment through the prescribed agency but exigency of administration may sometime call for an ad hoc and/or temporary appointment to be made. Such ad hoc or temporary appointee, the Supreme Court held, if allowed to continue for a fairly long span, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and service record and appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State. Direction given by the High Court in that case for regularisation of every ad hoc or temporary employees who had been continued for one year was held to be totally 'untenable' and 'unsustainable'. In the case of Piara Singh (supra) the Court noted that the normal rule is recruitment through the prescribed agency but due to administrative exigencies, an ad hoc or temporary appointment may be made. In such a situation, this Court held that efforts should always be made to replace such ad hoc or temporary appointment by regularly selected employees, as early as possible. The temporary employees also would get liberty to compete along with others for regular selection but if he is not selected, he must give way to the regularly selected candidates. Appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc or temporary employee. Ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee, he must be replaced by only regularly selected employee. The ad hoc appointment should not be a device to circumvent the rule of reservation.

15. In State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, JT 1995 (5) SC 179 : AIR 1992 SC 2130, the question regarding regularisation of ad hoc appointees came up for consideration before the Supreme Court. It was held that normal rule would be regular appointment through the prescribed agency but exigency of administration may sometime call for an ad hoc and/or temporary appointment to be made. Such ad hoc or temporary appointee, the Supreme Court held, if allowed to continue for a fairly long span, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and service record and appointment does not run counter, to the reservation policy of the State. Direction given by the High Court in that case for regularisation of every ad hoc or temporary employees who had been continued for one year was held to be totally 'untenable' and 'unsustainable'. In the case of Piara Singh (supra) the Court noted that the normal rule is recruitment, through the prescribed agency but due to administrative exigencies, an ad hoc or temporary appointment may be made In such a situation, this Court held that efforts should always be made to replace such ad hoc or temporary appointment by regularly selected employees, as early as possible. The temporary employees also would get liberty to compete along with others for regular selection but if he is not selected, he must give way to the regularly selected candidates. Appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc or temporary employee. Ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee, he must be replaced by only regularly selected employee. The ad hoc appointment should not be a device to circumvent the rule of reservation.