Employees Appointed On Ad-hoc Basis Cannot Override Seniority Of Employees Appointed Through Proper Selection Procedure On Substantive Basis: SC
A two-judge Bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka in its judgment rendered on 8th December'21 has held that the employees who were appointed on ad-hoc basis and qualified the typing test at a later stage in absence of the scheme of rules in determining seniority cannot override employees appointed on substantive basis after going through the process of selection for holding regular selection.
Counsel Ms. Kaveeta Wadia appeared for the Appellants during the proceedings before the Court.
The Supreme Court heard the petition in which the Appellants who were appointed as the Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) after going through the process of the recruitment and qualifying the written and typing test in the year 1987, had challenged the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court.
The High Court in its impugned judgment held that the Respondents who were appointed on ad-hoc basis in the years 1983-1989 and who qualified the typing test in the year 1992 or after that were determined as senior to the Appellants in the seniority list of Lower Division Clerks on being regularized from the date of their initial ad-hoc appointment.
The order that was passed which regularized the Respondents from the date of their initial ad-hoc appointment had although clearly stated that the seniority of the Respondents shall be fixed separately according to the rules but there was a lack of any such rules regarding the determination of seniority of the employees appointed in the cadre of Lower Divisional Clerk of the ministerial staff under the subordinate judiciary of Delhi.
The Supreme Court while setting aside the order given by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court observed, "The employees who were appointed on ad-hoc basis and qualified typing test at the later stage, in absence of the scheme of rules in determining seniority, at least could not have a right to march over such of the employees who were appointed on substantive basis after going through the process of selection for holding regular selection and their right of seniority in no manner be relegated qua such of the ad-hoc employees who qualified typing test at a later stage and regularized subsequently from the date of initial appointment."
The Supreme Court held, "The Division Bench has committed a manifest error under the impugned judgment in granting them the benefit of seniority who were appointed on ad-hoc basis as LDCs from the date of their regularization which was neither granted by the District and Session Judge nor they were entitled for under the law."