2009 (5) TMI 959 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ad hoc appointment vs. regular appointment.
2. Stagnation benefits and regularization.
3. Application of recruitment rules.
4. Interpretation of relevant government orders and notifications.
5. Seniority and promotion criteria.

Detailed Analysis:

Ad hoc Appointment vs. Regular Appointment:
The core issue in these cases was whether ad hoc appointments or appointments on a daily wage or work charge basis are considered appointments made to the cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the recruitment rules as contemplated by the Government Orders dated 25.1.1992 and 17.2.1998. The appellants argued that such appointments are not regular appointments, while the respondents contended otherwise. The Supreme Court observed that ad hoc appointments are temporary and not made according to the statutory recruitment rules, thus not qualifying as regular appointments.

Stagnation Benefits and Regularization:
The appellants maintained that stagnation benefits are given from the date of regularization, as decided in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Anr. The Court noted that the stagnation benefits are provided due to the lack of promotion opportunities and are applicable only after regularization. The Court emphasized that ad hoc employees do not have the right to regularization unless they pass the proficiency test and meet other criteria specified in the recruitment rules.

Application of Recruitment Rules:
The recruitment rules, including the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957, and others, were central to the judgment. The Court highlighted that regular appointments must be made in accordance with these rules, which specify the procedures for recruitment, including the necessity of passing proficiency tests and the conditions for regularization. The Court clarified that executive instructions cannot override these statutory rules.

Interpretation of Relevant Government Orders and Notifications:
The Court examined various government orders and notifications, particularly the Notification dated 29.3.1995 and subsequent ones. It was noted that these notifications stressed the need for regular appointments made in accordance with recruitment rules. The Court pointed out that the High Court had misinterpreted these notifications by confusing regular appointments to the cadre/service with appointments to specific posts.

Seniority and Promotion Criteria:
The Court reiterated that ad hoc appointments do not count towards seniority and promotion. It referred to Rule 25(4), which relates to prospective appointments and emphasized that seniority starts when an employee is born in the cadre/service. The Court cited previous judgments, including Dr. Chanchal Goyal (Mrs.) v. State of Rajasthan and others, to support this view. The Court also noted that the High Court had erred in equating ad hoc appointments with regular appointments for the purpose of seniority and promotion.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in its interpretation of the relevant rules and notifications. It held that ad hoc appointments do not qualify as regular appointments and do not count towards seniority or promotion. The appeals were allowed, and the State was directed to reconsider the specific case where the respondent's regularization and benefits were in question. The Court emphasized the need for adherence to statutory recruitment rules and clarified that executive instructions cannot override these rules.