WPSS/2041/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 3436 UK

                                              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. 2041 of 2022
                                     Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Alok Mahra and Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, Advocates for the petitioners.

Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate for the respondents. 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 orders dated 26/27/28 & 29 September, 2022 passed by Deputy Secretary, Uttarakhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, whereby their services as Reporter, Editor, Additional Private Secretary, Information Officer, Deputy Protocol Officer, Cataloguer, Computer Operator and Computer Assistant 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.

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 Counsel 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 an 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 this writ petition, 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 this case on 19.12.2022 alongwith WPSS No. 1929 of 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 a certified copy of this order be issued today itself.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 21.10.2022 Arpan