The Division Bench of Supreme Court consisting of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka while hearing a Writ Petition noted that the employees who were appointed on adhoc 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 adhoc employees who qualified typing test at a later stage and regularized subsequently from the date of initial appointment.
Facts and Procedural History
The instant appeal was jointly filed by the employees who were substantively appointed as Lower Division Clerks(“LDC”) after going through the regular process of recruitment and qualifying written and typing tests in the year 1987 assailing the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi directing the respondents who were appointed on adhoc basis in the years 19831989 and later qualified the typing test in the first or second attempt in the year 1992 or thereafter were placed enblock senior to the appellants in the seniority list of LDC on being regularized by Order from the date of their initial adhoc appointment.
In the order it was clearly mentioned that the seniority of the respondents adhoc employees who are regularised after qualifying typing test from the date of their initial appointment, shall be fixed separately according to rules. Admittedly, there are no rules/guidelines available for determining seniority of the employees appointed in the cadre of LDC of the ministerial staff under the subordinate judiciary of Delhi. A presumption was drawn as they were regularized from the date of appointment that entails consequential seniority but that came to be clarified by the learned Single Judge that they will not be entitled to claim seniority over such of the employees who were appointed on substantive basis unlike the present appellants but that came to be set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court by primarily relying on the interim order passed by the High Court in the earlier proceedings which was in reference to panel of 180 candidates who qualified the typing test held pursuant to Orders passed by the High Court of Delhi.
Undisputedly, the order dated 20th August 1992 in no manner was related to determination of seniority qua the present appellants who were recruited through open selection after qualifying the written test followed by typing test in the year 1987.
Observations of the Court and Judgment
The Bench observed that:
“The employees who were appointed on adhoc 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 adhoc employees who qualified typing test at a later stage and regularized subsequently from the date of initial appointment like in the instant case by an Order dated 17th November, 2000. In our considered view, the Division Bench has committed a manifest error under the impugned judgment in granting them the benefit of seniority who were appointed on adhoc basis as LDCs from the date of their regularization which was neither granted by the District and Session Judge by its Order dated 17th November, 2000 nor they were entitled for under the law.”
The appeal was hereby allowed, and the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi dated 6th December, 2018 was set aside.
Case Name: Shyam Sunder Oberoi & Ors. vs District And Session Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7535 of 2021
Bench: Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Abhay S. Oka
Decided on: 8th December 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :