Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Sh. Lokmanya Singh And Anr.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1878 Del

JUDGMENT

Khan, (J)

1. Respondent, Assistant Supdt., Stores, in Safdarjung Hospital, was appointed Assistant Administrative Officer (AAO) (Group D) on ad hoc basis for three months or till regular appointment was made to the post whichever was earlier by order dated 31.1.1997 passed by petitioner No. 2. His term was not extended thereafter. However, in response to his correspondence, it was recorded in an officer note dated 22.7.1999 that since no extension was granted in his term, he would stand reverted to his post of Assistant Supdt. (Stores). He challenged this in OA No. 1654/99 and petitioners contested this on the plea that once his term was not extended he stood reverted automatically to his substantive post of ASS. Moreover, post of AAO was to be filled up on regular basis by selection from amongst the feeding cadres having five years experience in that cadre. It was also claimed that respondent was also considered by the DPC for regular appointment at one stage but was not found eligible as he felt short of requisite five years service as ASS.

2. Tribunal, however, on tracing respondent's service graph qua his other two colleagues, M/s. Gupta & Majhi took the view that he was unjustly dealt with and quashed office note dated 22.7.1999 reverting him to post of ASS. It further directed that he shall be deemed to have continued as AAO from February 1997 and considered for regularisation of his services on the post.

3. Petitioners feel aggrieved of this. Their case is that respondent's appointment as AAO was ad hoc for three months and his appointment order dated 31.1.1997 made it clear that it would not confer any right for regularisation or for that matter any other benefit of seniority, etc. on him. No extension was also granted and he stood automatically reverted to his substantive post of ASS and therefore, impugned Tribunal order quashing his reversion and directing his reinstatement was misdirected. Besides since regular appointment to the post was to be made by selection under recruitment rules which did not provide for regularisation of an ad hoc appointee there was no way to regularise his services. It is, however, stated that presently two posts of AAO were available for being filled up in which he would be accorded due consideration.

4. It is well settled that an appointment to the post was to be made in accordance with the mode prescribed by the recruitment rules and any appointment made de hors such rules was not liable to be regularised unless any such provision was made by these. Since no such provision admittedly existed in the recruitment rules the question of regularising respondent's services would not arise and Tribunal in our view had no occasion to direct regularisation of respondent's services. Impugned Tribunal order, therefore, can't sustain and is set aside.

5. This part, respondent still enjoyed a right of consideration for regular promotion to the post of AAO under Rules. Now that two posts were admittedly available, petitioners are directed to accord him due consideration for one of the posts and to pass appropriate orders in the matter. Respondents present service status as on today shall be maintained till then.