Supreme Court of India

SODAGAR SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: 1997 INSC 54
Decided: 24 January 1997
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG T NANAVATI

Holding

The High Court's interpretation that the ad‑hoc appointment cannot continue without regular recruitment is correct.

Summary

The petitioner, Sodagar Singh, was appointed on an ad‑hoc basis as a Legal Assistant in Punjab Roadways under the direct‑recruitment quota provided by Rule 8 and 9 of the Punjab Roadways (Ministerial) State Service Class‑III Rules, 1977. The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that such an ad‑hoc appointment could not be continued unless a regular recruitment was subsequently made, and directed that if regular recruitment was not effected within three months the petitioner would have to vacate the post. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court’s direction was erroneous. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Rules 8, 9 and 22, concluding that the conditions for direct recruitment cannot be relaxed and that the High Court’s interpretation was legally sound. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions, leaving the High Court’s order intact.

Issues considered

Whether an ad‑hoc appointment of a Legal Assistant made under the direct‑recruitment quota can continue without a subsequent regular recruitment.
Whether the High Court erred in directing that the petitioner must be regularised within three months or otherwise cease to hold the post.

Subjects

Service LawAd‑hoc appointmentRegular recruitmentLegal AssistantPunjab RoadwaysRule 8Rule 9Rule 22Supreme CourtSpecial Leave Petition

Judgment

r..,--
. '

SODAGAR SINGH A
~

' v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JANUARY 24, 1997

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) B

Service Law :
-+
Punjab Roadways (Ministerial) State Service Class-Ill Rules, 1977:

Rules 8.9.22-Appointment-Law Assistant-Direct recrnit appointed c
ad-hoc-High Court held that could not continue any longer unless regular
recrnitment was made-Also gave direction to make regular appointment and
if not made within 3 months, petitioner would not continue any longer after
the expiry of three months-Held : High Court committed no error of law
warranting interference. D
~~.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
Nos. 20421-22 of 1996.

From the judgment and order dated 27.5.96 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 1473 of 1996. E
Devendra Verma, Garish Sharma and Naresh Bakshi for the Appel-
lants.

The following order of the Court was delivered:
F
These special leave petitions have been filed against the Judgments
and Orders dated May 27, 1996 and August 20, 1996 passed by the Division
Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the writ petition and the
Review Petition in Regular Appeal No. 191 of 1996 respectively.
G
The admitted position is that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc
basis to the post of Legal Assistant in ~he respondent-organisation. Rule 8
of the Punjab Roadways (Ministerial) State Serve CLass-111 Rules, 1977
-'\ provides as under:

"8. No person shall be· appointed to the service unless he has H
523
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 1 S.C.R.

A requisite qualifications and experience as specified in column 3 of
Appendix 'B' to these rules in case of direct appointment and 1-
appointment by transfer and those specified in column 4 of the
aforesaid Appendix in case of appoi,ntment by promotion.

9 ( 1). Appointment to the service shall be made in the following
B manner namely:-

(a) xxxxxxx

(b) in the case of Legal Assistants:-

c (i) 20 per cent by direct recruitment; and

(ii) 80 percent by promotion from amongst the law
Graduates serving in the Deptt. including employees of
the Punjab Roadways on the basis of merit-cum-
seniority; or
D
(iii) by transfer or deputation of an official already in service
of Government of a State or Government of India, .if a
suitable candidate is not available by the methods men-
tioned in sub clauses (1) and (ii)."
E
A reading of Rule 8 would clearly indicate that all Law Graduates
se~g in the Department are eligible for consideration of promotion as
Legal Assistants on the basis of merit-cum-seniority subject to the
qualifications and the conditions mentioned in the Rules. Rule 9 (1) (b)
postulates that 20% of the posts of Legal Assistants are reserved for direct
F recruitment. Ad:nittedly, the petitioner came to be appointed as direct
recruit on ad hoc basis to the post of Legal Assistant within that quota.
When the direct recruitment is made, the Government has no power to
relax the conditions required to be fulfilled for being eligible for appoint-
ment by direct recruitment and to give further promotion to the petitioner
G as Legal Assistant exercising the power under Rule 22 relaxing Rules 8 and
9 of the Rules. The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, is right
in its conclusion that the petitioner, having been appointed as Legal
Assistant on ad hoc basis, could not continue any longer unless a regUlar )- .
recruitment was made. A direction, therefore, was given to the respon-
H dents to make regular recruitment and in the event of regular appointment
,
SODAGAR SINGH v. STATE 525
not being made within three months, the petitioner would not continue any A
longer after the expiry of three months. Under these circumstance, we do
not think that the High Court has committed any error of law in the above
interpretation warranting interference. It is for the Government to take
appropriate action under the law.

The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed. B

G.N. Petitions dismissed.
·-+

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Service Law"Sign in to search