Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1937/2022 on 15 October, 2022
1
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No. 1929 of 2022
WPSS No. 1959 of 2022
WPSS NO. 1961 of 2022
WPSS No. 1964 of 2022
WPSS No. 1969 of 2022
WPSS No. 1937 of 2022
WPSS No. 1938 of 2022
WPSS No. 1939 of 2022
WPSS No. 1940 of 2022
WPSS No. 1941 of 2022
WPSS No. 1942 of 2022
WPSS No. 1945 of 2022
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Mr. A.S. Rawat & Mr.
K.P. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocates with
Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, Mr.
J. Rahman, Mr. R.S. Bisht and Mr. Alok Mehra,
learned counsels for the petitioners.
Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Since common questions of fact and law
are involved in these petitions, therefore, these
petitions are clubbed together and common
order is being passed. However, for the sake of
convenience, facts of WPSS No. 1929 of 2022
alone are being considered.
Petitioners were appointed against
sanctioned posts in Secretariat of State
Legislative Assembly on different dates.
Petitioners contend that they were appointed on
ad-hoc basis by the Competent Authority, and
as per the applicable Service Rules, they have a
right to be considered for regularisation.
However, it is contended on behalf of
respondents that petitioners were appointed by
way of Stop Gap Arrangement, de-hors the
Service Rules, therefore, they have no right or
lien on the post.
Petitioners are challenging separate orders
dated 28.09.2022 passed by Deputy Secretary,
Uttarakhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, whereby
their services as Additional Private Secretary
have been terminated with immediate effect.
As per recital in the impugned orders, their
service is terminated in public interest. No
other reason is discernible from the impugned
orders.
Learned Senior Counsels for the
petitioners submit that petitioners were
appointed in the year 2016 except petitioners in
WPSS No. 1937 of 2022, WPSS No. 1938 of
2022, WPSS No. 1939 of 2022, WPSS No. 1940
of 2022, WPSS No. 1941 of 2022 and WPSS No.
1942 of 2022, who were appointed in the year
2020.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners
that at the time of their ad-hoc appointment,
petitioners possessed all requisite qualification
for regular appointment to their respective
posts and further that work and performance of
petitioners is above board and there is no
complaint regarding their conduct from any
quarter.
Learned Senior Counsels for the
petitioners have raised following contentions
against the termination orders passed by
Vidhan Sabha Secretariat:-
(a) In Writ Petition (PIL) No. 66 of 2017
filed by Mr. Rajesh Chandola and others, ad-hoc
appointments made in Vidhan Sabha in the year
2016 were challenged on various grounds.
Vidhan Sabha Secretariat filed counter affidavit
justifying the ad-hoc appointments, therefore,
Vidhan Sabha Secretariat cannot now take a
contrary stand that petitioners' appointment is
illegal;
(b) Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition (PIL) No. 66 of 2017 repelled challenge
to petitioners' ad-hoc appointment made in
Vidhan Sabha Secretariat in 2016 and the
method of appointing eligible persons on ad-hoc
basis was approved, thus respondents cannot
now contend that petitioners' appointment as
ad-hoc employee, is illegal;
c) Division Bench judgment dated
26.06.2018 directing respondents to verify
which of the ad-hoc appointees are not
educationally qualified and services of only
those, who were not qualified, was to be
terminated, however, respondents have
terminated service of all ad-hoc employees
without undertaking the exercise contemplated
in paragraph no. 29 of the judgment rendered
in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 66 of 2017;
d) The impugned order(s) entail civil
and evil consequence to petitioners, however, in
the impugned order(s), no reason has been
assigned for terminating service of petitioners,
thus, the impugned order(s) are unsustainable
in the eyes of law; and
e) Most of the petitioners have served
for six years as ad-hoc employee, however,
neither any notice nor opportunity of hearing
was given to them, before passing impugned
termination order(s), which is in negation of
Principles of Natural Justice.
A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of
respondents in WPSS No. 1929 of 2022. In
paragraph no. 10 of the counter affidavit,
reference is made to the complaints received
against ad-hoc appointments and it is stated
that an Expert Committee was constituted by
the Speaker on 03.09.2022 and the Committee
submitted its report on 20.09.2022. In
paragraph no. 15 of the counter affidavit, it is
stated that Expert Committee has also flagged
the issue of ad-hoc appointments, made in
similar manner earlier, which were regularised
upto 2016. The counter affidavit is however
silent regarding deficiency, if any, in the work,
conduct and performance of the petitioners.
The reason for terminating service of the
petitioners, as could be culled out from the
counter affidavit, is that they were appointed
without following the procedure prescribed in
the Rules.
This Court finds some substance in the
contention made by learned Senior Counsels for
petitioners that Rules lay down the procedure
for regular appointment and no procedure is
prescribed for ad-hoc appointment, therefore,
termination of service of petitioners, only on the
ground of non-observance of the procedure
provided in the Rules, would be unjust.
The relevant Service Rules permit ad-hoc
appointments, as held by Division Bench of this
Court, however, it is also not in dispute that
petitioners were appointed, though on ad-hoc
basis, without any selection.
The order(s) of termination do not disclose
any reason, however, counter affidavit filed in
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1929 of 2022 reveals
that termination order(s) have been passed
based on report of a Enquiry Committee.
Whether reason supplied through counter
affidavit can be considered while adjudicating
the question of validity of termination order(s),
or not is a debatable question. Similarly,
whether petitioners were entitled to hearing in
the matter is also a question, which falls for
consideration in these cases.
There are other issues raised in these writ
petitions, which require scrutiny.
Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel appearing
for respondents prays for and is granted four
weeks' time for filing counter affidavit in other
connected writ petitions. Petitioners may file
rejoinder thereto within two weeks thereafter.
List these cases on 19.12.2022.
Till the next date of listing, impugned
termination order(s) passed in respect of
petitioners shall remain stayed and petitioners
shall be allowed to work and be paid
remuneration, as before.
However, the Competent Authority in
Vidhan Sabha Secretariat shall be at liberty to
initiate process of selection for regular
appointment to all vacant posts, including the
posts against which petitioners were serving on
ad-hoc basis.
The Competent Authority in Vidhan Sabha
Secretariat shall be at liberty to undertake the
exercise in terms of paragraph no. 29 of the
judgment in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 66 of 2017.
Petitioners will not claim any equity on the
strength of this order and service rendered by
them on the strength of this order, will not
create any new right in their favour, including
that of regular appointment. However, it shall
be open to petitioners, who meet all eligibility
conditions, to participate in the selection for
regular appointment, when initiated by the
Competent Authority, and their participation in
the selection will be without prejudice to their
rights and contentions in their writ petitions.
Each petitioner shall also give undertaking
by filing affidavit before the Competent
Authority in Vidhan Sabha Secretariat that they
will abide by all the orders issued by superior
authorities; they will serve the organisation
with utmost sincerity, honesty and dedication
and they will not divulge any official information
to unauthorised person; they will never break
the discipline nor will they cause disturbance in
Vidhan Sabha; and they will not create
hindrance in the process of selection, when
initiated for regular appointment.
Let certified copy of this order be supplied
to the parties within 48 hours, on payment of
usual charges.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
15.10.2022
Aswal
