Supreme Court Oorder Reg Adhoc Service can not counted as Regular service thn how DG ;AIR counting contract service even without verification of contracts counting this as regular service ?

Item No.103 COURT No. 4 SEC.XI


S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


CIVIL APPEAL No.12801/1996@@
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Union of India & Ors. Appellant (s)


VERSUS


Satish Chandra Mathur Respondent (s)

(With Office Report)


Date : 01.05.2001 This appeal was called on for hearing today.@@
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA



CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.B. PATTANAIK
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. AGRAWAL



For Appellant (s) Mr. N.N. Goswami,Sr.Adv.
Mr. W.S.A. Qadri,Adv.
Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv.



For Respondent (s) M/s. Arvind Kumar,Mrs.Laxmi Arvind and
Mr. S.C. Gupta,Adv.

Mr. C.S. Ashri,Adv.
Mr. P.N.Puri,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

........L.......I.......T.......T.......T.......T...................J.
.SP2
The appeal is allowed.


.SP1
(Y.P.Dhamija) (Suneet Bala Sharma)@@
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
COURT MASTER Court Master

Signed order is placed on the file.



.PA
.PL56

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDCTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.12801/1996@@
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


Union of India & Ors. ..Appellants



Vs.


Satish Chandra Mathur ..Respondent




O R D E R@@
EEEEEEEEEE


........L.......I.......T.......T.......T.......T...................J.
.SP2
Union of India is in appeal against an order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench. The
question for consideration is whether the services rendered
by the respondent as an ad-hoc Programme Executive from
28.10.1976 till 1.1.1979, on which date his services stood
regularised as a Programme Executive, can at all be counted
for recokning his seniority in the cadre of Progrmme
Executive. The recruitment to the post of Programme
Executive is governed by a set of rules under proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution called the All India Radio
(Group 'B' Posts) Recruitment Rules 1962. The said rules has
been amended from time to time. The Programme Executive
being a Group B, the prescribed procedure for recruitment to
the said post is, as contained in Rule 4-A. It necessarily
stipulates, constitution of a screening committee with the
Chairman or Member, Union Public Service Commission as a
member of the committee, and then after

- 2 -
consideration/adjudging suitability, approval of the list by
the Union Public Service Commission, whereafter appointment
could be made by the Government. The respondent, however,
without going through the process of screening and selection,
as stated above, was appointed by the Director General, All
India Radio by letter dated 25th September, 1976, and the
appointment letter unequivocally indicates that the
appointment to the post of Programme Executive is on ad-hoc
basis, and it further adds a clause to the appointment
letter, which reads as under :
"The appointments of the Transmission Executives
mentioned above as Programme Executive will be on adhoc basis
and it will not confer on them any right or privilege for
continued or regular appointment in that grade."
When the seniority list of the Programme Executive
was drawn from time to time in 1977, in 1980, in 1985, and
finally in 1989, the Union Government had not taken the
aforesaid ad-hoc period for the purposes of the seniority of
the respondent. The respondent, however, had been filing
objection to the said seniority list, and finally approached
the Administrative Tribunal. When in the seniority list was
drawn in 1989, he was shown at serial No.107 excluding the
ad-hoc period from consideration. The Tribunal by the
impugned judgment relying upon the earlier decision of the
Tribunal in the case of one M.P. Verma came to hold that
since the respondent has been continuously holding the post

- 3 -
of Programme Executive from October 1976 till 1.1.1979, the
date on which his services stood regularised, it would be
unequitable not to count that period for the purposes of the
seniority merely because of mentioning 'adhoc'in the letter
of appointment. In effect, the Tribunal follows the earlier
decision of the Tribunal in Verma's case.
Mr. Goswami, the learned senior counsel, appearing
for the Union Government contended that in the teeth of the
provisions of the Statutory Recruitment Rules prescribing the
procedure for filling up post of Programme Executive, and
that procedure not having been followed, and instead the
respondent having been appointed by the Director General on
28th October, 1976, and the terms and conditions of the
appointment having clearly stipulated that the period will
not be counted either for regular recruitment or for any
purpose, the Tribunal committed error in recokning that
period for the purposes of determining the seniority of the
respondent in the cadre of Programme Executive. Mr. Arvind
Kumar appearing for the respondent, on the other hand,
contended that it is no doubt true that the prscribed
procedure had not been followed, but since at that point of
time there had been no screening committee, and the
respondent possesses the prescribed qualifications, and was
appointed by the competent authority, and had been allowed to
continue in the post still regularisation on 1.1.1979, the
principle enunciated by this Court in the Constitution Bench

- 4 -
decision in the Direct Recruitment case should apply and
principle B thereof would be applicable to the case in hand,
and as such there is no infirmity with the impugned order of
the Tribunal.
Having examined the rival submissions at the Bar, and
having examined the relevant provisions governing the
conditions of recruitment to the post of Programme Executive,
and having examined the very order of appointment of
respondent dated 28.10.1976, we have no manner of doubt that
the period from 28.10.1976 till 1.1.1979 cannot be counted
for the purposes of recokning the seniority of the respondent
in the cadre of Programme Executive. It is undisputed that
the appointment to the cadre was dehors the statutory rules,
and was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure, even
though the respondent might have possessed the prescribed
qualifications for being appointed. Possessing the
prescribed qualifications itself would not constitute an
appointment in accordance with rules, particularly when the
procedure, as in the case in hand, was that a Screening
Committee would scrutinise the cases and the Chairman, Union
Public Service Commission is a member of the said committee,
and then the selection is required to be approved by the
Union Public Service Commission. In this view of the matter,
we unhesitantly hold that the Tribunal committed serious
error in directing that the period of service rendered by the
respondent from 28.10.1976 till 1.1.1979 could be counted for

- 5 -
the purposes of his seniority in the cadre of Programme
Executive. We therefore set aside the aforesaid order of the
Tribunal, and hold that the respondent's seniority in the
cadre of Programme Executive could be counted from 1.1.1979
as Programme Executive.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.
The case of the intervenors also shall be decided in
accordance with the aforesaid principle.


.SP1
......................J.
(G.B. PATTANAIK)@@
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA




New Delhi, ......................J.@@
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
May 01, 2001 (B.N. AGRAWAL)@@
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA