9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rk in the year 1979 and posted under Chief Personnel Officer, North Frontier Railway. He was promoted as Senior Clerk in 1981. The second appellant was recruited as Clerk Grade-II and was posted to work under the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, North Frontier Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati. He was promoted as Accounts Assistant on April 1, 1988. A notification was issued on August 12, 1984 to fill the post of Law Assistant and applications were invited from the serving railway employees possessing a Degree in Law and having rendered five years service. The appellants offered themselves as candidates and participated in the written test in which they were declared to have been successful. They also took viva voce examination. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants that the original order could not be modified after about two years; that they must be treated to have been regularly appointed Law Assistants; that they could not be deprived of the benefits thereof and that they cannot also be compelled to participate in the selection to be held subsequently. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the appellants were not selected for promotion which is a requirement under the relevant rules and were also not empanelled for regular promotion. Thus their promotion was purely on ad hoc basis given in the exigencies of service and, therefore, rectification of the mistake by inclusion of the words ad hoc cannot be treated as improper nor the earlier order could confer any right upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e available and under the relevant rules the panel prepared gets exhausted after two years. 6. The Tribunal further noticed that the mistake committed by the respondents could not confer any right contrary to the recruitment rules and, therefore, such a mistake would be rectified. The Tribunal also perused the original record of selection to examine the question whether the appellants could be appointed on regular basis or could only be appointed on ad hoc basis. The Tribunal noticed that the arrangement of ad hoc promotion against three reserved posts became necessary and in those circumstances the appellants were intended to be appointed only on ad hoc basis and not on regular basis. Existing vacancies were six and three persons were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce, to some extent, is justified. But vacancies not being available when they were appointed as Law Assistants it must be held that it is only on ad hoc basis and it is not as though the appellants would not be aware of the same and that is why they made representations to regularise their appointments subsequently and did not challenge the alteration of their promotions on ad hoc basis. Thus the appellants cannot make a grievance now when they are entitled to be regularly appointed as Law Assistants. On this basis we must uphold the order made by the Tribunal and dismiss the appeal. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from considering the case of the appellants appropriately and assort (appoint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
