Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.47 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K. Madalaimuthu & Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 4 July, 2006
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Madalaimuthu and Anr vs State
of Tamil Nadu reported in (2006) 6 SCC 558, while dealing with the case of
determination of seniority, held that seniority of a person appointed
temporarily to a particular post without recourse to the recruitment rules, can
be counted only from the date on which his services are regularised and
determining his seniority, considering the date of initial appointment on
temporary basis as the starting point of seniority was improper. In the said
case, the authorities, on the strength of Government Orders had given
retrospective effect to regularization of promotees and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in no uncertain terms held that such a course of action was erroneous
and contrary to the well established principles relating to determination of
seniority. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that
initial appointment to a post without recourse to the rules of recruitment is
not an appointment to service, not withstanding the fact that such appointee
is called upon to perform duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service.
It follows that a person who is appointed on ad-hoc basis to discharge
functions of a particular post otherwise than in accordance with recruitment
rules, cannot be a person in service, till such time his appointment is
32/45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.35788 and 35800 of 2019
regularised and only from the date his services is regularised, the said
appointee can count his seniority in the cadre.
M.P. Palanisamy & Ors vs A. Krishnan & Ors on 15 May, 2009
In M.P.Palanisamy & Ors Vs. A.Krishnan & Ors, reported in
2009 (6) SCC 428, placing reliance on R.23(a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and
Sub-ordinate Service Rules, the Apex Court rules that ad-hoc employee
cannot claim seniority to the junior most person already in service.
S.P.Pethel Raj vs Ve Vairappan on 18 September, 2012
1. The Division Bench of this Court in S.P.Pethel Raj Vs. Ve. Vairappan,
held that rules under Art.309 of Constitution of India, no doubt can be
made with retrospective effect. However, the Division Bench held that
making rules retrospective in operation and making appointments in
accordance with such rules are entirely different. The power to make
rules being legislative in nature could be exercised retrospectively,
whereas, in the light of such rules, appointments being made
retrospectively is purely administrative in nature and if such
administrative actions prejudicially affect vested rights of other
Government employees, then such administrative acts will be unfair
33/45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.35788 and 35800 of 2019
and arbitrary.
Rashi Mani Mishra And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 60 Others on 19 September, 2016
37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rashi Mani Mishra and Ors Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 509,
deciding an issue pertaining to determination of seniority of Assistant
Engineers and their services rendered as ad-hoc prior to regularization,
eligible for being counted for the purpose of seniority, held that ad-hoc
services cannot be reckoned for the purpose of seniority since initial
appointment was only temporary and ad-hoc and not according to the rules.
Seniority in any service is always determined by the date of order of
34/45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.35788 and 35800 of 2019
appointment in a substantive vacancy and consequently seniority can be
counted only from the date of a substantive appointment as in regular
appointment and not ad-hoc appointment.
Debabrata Dash & Anr vs Jatindra Prasad Das & Ors on 11 March, 2013
I have already found that the reasons
assigned do not satisfy the requirement of the statutory provisions. There was
absolutely no cause available to the authorities to issue G.O.(Ms)No.218 in
the teeth of the notification dated 31.12.2010 in pursuance of which
examination was also held on 30.07.2011 and the Writ Petitioners were all
appointed directly to the post of Assistants. One another contention of the
learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, in which I find force, is that in the
impugned communication dated 27.06.2012 the authorities admittedly have
not drawn up the list/panel in terms of R.5 of the Tamilnadu Ministerial
Service Rules, which exercise is required to be done every year. I am also
reminded of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Debrata
Dash and anr Vs. Jatindra Das Prasad and anr, reported in 2013 3 SCC
658, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a public appointment
made on adhoc basis would always be sub-ordinate to the regular
appointment.
K. Meghachandra Singh And 6 Ors vs Ningam Siro And 42 Ors on 24 May, 2019
In so far as the decisions on which reliance is placed by the learned
Senior Counsel for the respondents 6 to 15 in W.P.No.35788 of 2019, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Meghachandra Singh and Others Vs. Ningam
Siro and Others, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 689, held that seniority cannot be
claimed from a date when the incumbent is yet to be borne in the cadre.
Relying on the said decision, learned Senior counsel would contend that the
petitioners cannot claim seniority since they were admittedly appointed only
on 11.12.2012, before which date private respondents have been
regularised/appointed. There is no quarrel with regard to the said ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case. However, the issue on
hand is the colorable exercise of power exercised by the authorities which
has led to non consideration of the seniority of regularly appointed Assistants
viz., the Writ Petitioners.
State Bank Of India Etc vs Kashinath Kher & Ors. Etc on 8 February, 1996
In State Bank of India & Ors Vs. Kashinath Kher and Ors,
reported in (1996) 8 SCC 762, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
policy decision relaxing criteria of eligibility with retrospective effect cannot
38/45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.35788 and 35800 of 2019
be termed as unjust. However, in the case on hand, it was not a case similar to
the facts in issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Here, the Writ
Petitioners were already shortlisted and waiting to be appointed and invoking
a non-existent emergency clause, the appointment of the Writ Petitioners was
deferred only in order to accommodate the candidates in feeder categories
and that being so, the administrative action in the case on hand is clearly
violative of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also
the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.309 of the Constitution of India.
State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. Etc vs E. Paripoornam And Ors on 19 August, 1991
In Thiru A.Balakrishnan & Anr Vs. Govt.T.N and Ors, reported
in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 108, the Hon'ble Supreme Court placing reliance on
Paripoornam's case held that when the order of regularisation of services of
candidates expressly stated that inter se seniority of the candidates would be
in accordance with the rankings in the approved list prepared by the Public
Service Commission and will not be affected in any way by the date of
regularisation of services and such order of regularisation of temporary
service denies such service for the purpose of determining seniority, the
Court cannot count that service for the purpose of seniority and finding that
there is no such condition in the order of regularisation of the appellants
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court denying seniority to the appellants from
the date of their initial appointment, from which date they were regularised,
they are entitled to count the whole of the period of service for the purpose of
seniority.