# STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS v. VIJAY SINGH AND ORS - **Citation:** [2012] 10 S.C.R. 356 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2012-08-22 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5947 of 2012 - **Bench:** G.S. Singhvi, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-haryana-and-ors-v-vijay-singh-and-ors-27948 - **Pages:** 32 ## Headnote Service Law - Seniority - Ad-hoc appointment of C respondents as Masters in different subjects I Physical Training Instructor I Hindi Teacher - Subsequently regularized - After regularization, claim of respondents that the period of ad-hoc service be counted towards seniority - Claim not accepted by the department - Respondents filed D writ petition - High Court held that seniority of the respondents be fixed by taking into account their ad hoc service - Justification - Held: Not justified - Till framing of the 1998 Rules, appointments to the posts of Masters and Teachers were governed by the 1995 Rules - In terms of r. 3 of the 1955 E Rules, only the Director was competent to make appointments and after the Selection Board was constituted vide Notification dated 28-1-1970, the Director could make appointment only on recommendation of the Board - Further in terms of r. 8 of the 1955 Rules, .every appointee was required to be placed F on probation - Respondents were neither appointed by the Director (the competent authority) on the recommendations of the Board nor they were placed on probation - They were appointed on purely ad hoc basis without following the procedure prescribed for regular appointment - Mere fact that the ad hoc appointments of respondents were preceded by G sending requisitions to the Employment Exchanges and recommendations by the District Selection Committee cannot lead to an inference that they were appointed on regular basis - Further, in terms of r. 9 of the 1955 Rules, inter se seniority H 356 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH 357 AND ORS. was required to be determined by the dates of confirmation A while in terms of r. 11 of the 1998 Rules inter se seniority was to be determined by the length of continuous service on the post - Respondents were appointed on purely ad hoc basis and continued to serve as such till regularization of their service - Therefore, their seniority could not be fixed either B ulr. 9 of the 1955 Rules or r. 11 of the 1998 Rules by counting their service from the date of their initial ad hoc appointments - Punjab Educational Service, Class Ill, School Cadre Rules, 1955 - rr. 3, 8 and 9 - Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-CJ Service Rules, 1998 - r.11. c The respondents were appointed as - Masters in the subjects of Science, Maths and Social Studies I Physical Training Instructor I Hindi Teacher purely on ad hoc basis between 1994 and 1996 by the District Education Officers. In furtherance of the policy decision taken by the D State Government, the services of the respondents were regularized w.e.f. 1-10-2003. After regularization of their services, the respondents claimed that the period of adh oc service should be counted towards seniority because they were recruited on the basis of selection E made by the District Selection Committee from among the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. The department did not accept their plea and in the provisional gradation list of the Haryana Education Service Class Ill, their names were shown below those F who were appointed on regular basis prior to 1-10-2003. The respondents challenged the provisional gradation list in a Writ Petition on the ground that the same was discriminatory. In response, the appellants G pleaded that the Provisional Gradation List was prepared in accordance with Rule 11 of the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1998 and the service rendered by the respondents before regularization cannot be taken into consideration for the H purpose of fixation of seniority. The High Court held that 358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 10 S.C.R. A the seniority of the respondents be fixed by taking into account their ad hoc service and, therefore, the instant appeal. B c Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Till the framing of the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998, the appointments to the posts of Masters and Teachers were governed by the Pu ## Text _Characters 0–39,732 of 56,079. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39732 for what follows._ A B [2012] 10 S.C.R. 356 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5947 of 2012) AUGUST 22, 2012 [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] Service Law - Seniority - Ad-hoc appointment of C respondents as Masters in different subjects I Physical Training Instructor I Hindi Teacher - Subsequently regularized - After regularization, claim of respondents that the period of ad-hoc service be counted towards seniority - Claim not accepted by the department - Respondents filed D writ petition - High Court held that seniority of the respondents be fixed by taking into account their ad hoc service - Justification - Held: Not justified - Till framing of the 1998 Rules, appointments to the posts of Masters and Teachers were governed by the 1995 Rules - In terms of r. 3 of the 1955 E Rules, only the Director was competent to make appointments and after the Selection Board was constituted vide Notification dated 28-1-1970, the Director could make appointment only on recommendation of the Board - Further in terms of r. 8 of the 1955 Rules, .every appointee was required to be placed F on probation - Respondents were neither appointed by the Director (the competent authority) on the recommendations of the Board nor they were placed on probation - They were appointed on purely ad hoc basis without following the procedure prescribed for regular appointment - Mere fact that the ad hoc appointments of respondents were preceded by G sending requisitions to the Employment Exchanges and recommendations by the District Selection Committee cannot lead to an inference that they were appointed on regular basis - Further, in terms of r. 9 of the 1955 Rules, inter se seniority H 356 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH 357 AND ORS. was required to be determined by the dates of confirmation A while in terms of r. 11 of the 1998 Rules inter se seniority was to be determined by the length of continuous service on the post - Respondents were appointed on purely ad hoc basis and continued to serve as such till regularization of their service - Therefore, their seniority could not be fixed either B ulr. 9 of the 1955 Rules or r. 11 of the 1998 Rules by counting their service from the date of their initial ad hoc appointments - Punjab Educational Service, Class Ill, School Cadre Rules, 1955 - rr. 3, 8 and 9 - Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-CJ Service Rules, 1998 - r.11. c The respondents were appointed as - Masters in the subjects of Science, Maths and Social Studies I Physical Training Instructor I Hindi Teacher purely on ad hoc basis between 1994 and 1996 by the District Education Officers. In furtherance of the policy decision taken by the D State Government, the services of the respondents were regularized w.e.f. 1-10-2003. After regularization of their services, the respondents claimed that the period of adh oc service should be counted towards seniority because they were recruited on the basis of selection E made by the District Selection Committee from among the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. The department did not accept their plea and in the provisional gradation list of the Haryana Education Service Class Ill, their names were shown below those F who were appointed on regular basis prior to 1-10-2003. The respondents challenged the provisional gradation list in a Writ Petition on the ground that the same was discriminatory. In response, the appellants G pleaded that the Provisional Gradation List was prepared in accordance with Rule 11 of the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1998 and the service rendered by the respondents before regularization cannot be taken into consideration for the H purpose of fixation of seniority. The High Court held that 358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 10 S.C.R. A the seniority of the respondents be fixed by taking into account their ad hoc service and, therefore, the instant appeal. B c Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Till the framing of the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998, the appointments to the posts of Masters and Teachers were governed by the Punjab Educational Service, Class Ill, School Cadre Rules, 1955. [Para 11] [376-C] 1.2. A reading of order dated 16.10.1995 issued by District Education Officer, Panipat makes it crystal clear that even though respondent No.1 was appointed as Science Master on the recommendations of the District 0 Level Committee, his appointment was purely ad hoc with a tenure of six months or till the availability of a candidate for regular appointment, whichever was earlier. The other respondents were appointed in the same manner with similar stipulation. The reason why the respondents were E appointed on purely ad-hoc basis is not far to seek. The concerned District Education Officers did. send requisitions to the Employment Exchanges and appointments were made on the recommendations of the District Level Committee but all this was not in consonance with the mandate of the 1955 Rules and F Notifications dated 28.1.1970 and 29.6.1973. [Para 15] [378-C-F] 1.3. In terms of Rule 3 of the 1955 Rules, only the Director was competent to make appointments on the G posts to which those rules were applicable with the exception that Divisional lnspector/lnspectorass of School or the Principals of Government Colleges could make temporary or officiating appointments on certain posts for a maximum period of three months. After the H Subordinate Services Selection Board was constituted STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH 359 AND ORS. vide Notification dated 28.1.1970, the Director could make A appointment only on the recommendation of the Board unless the State Government was to issue notification under proviso to Clause 6 of Notification dated 29.6.1973. In terms of Rule 8 of the 1955 Rules, every person appointed by direct recruitment was required to be B placed on probation for a period .of one year. The respondents were neither appointed by the Director on the recommendations of the Board nor they were placed on probation. As a matter of fact, they were appointed on purely ad hoc basis without following the procedure c prescribed for regular appointment. Therefore, the mere fact \hat the ad hoc api:-ointments of the respondents were preceded by sending requisitions to the Employment Exchanges and recommendations by the District Selection Committee cannot lead to an inference D that they were appointed on regular basis. [Para 15) [378F-H; 379-A-C] 1.4. The High Court overlooked the fact that the respondents were neither appointed by the competent authority on the recommendations made by the Board E nor they were placed on probation. Therefore, the conclusion recorded by the High Court that the respondents' initial appointments were regular and, therefore, ad hoc service was liable to be counted for the purpose of fixation of seniority is legally unsustainable. F [Para 16) [379-E-F] 1.5. Further, in terms of Rule 9 of the 1955 Rules, the seniority inter se of members of the service holding the same class of posts and in the same/identical grades of G pay is required to be determined by the dates of their confirmation. Rule 11 of the 1998 Rules lays down that seniority inter se of members of the service shall be determined by the length of continuous service on any post. The respondents were appointed on purely ad hoc basis for six months and they continued to serve as ad H 360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 10 S.C.R. A hoc Masters, Physical Training Instructor and Hindi Teacher till the regularization of their service w.e.f. 1.10.2003. Therefore, their seniority could not be fixed either under Rule 9 of the 1955 Rules or Rule 11 of the 1998 Rules by counting their service from the date of 8 initial appointments. [Para 17] [379-G-H; 380-A-B] 2. In cases where recruitment and conditions of service including seniority are regulated by the law enacted by Parliament or the State Legislature or the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, the general C proposition laid down in any judgment cannot be applied de hors the relevant statutory provisions and dispute relating to seniority has to be resolved keeping in view such provisions. No proposition of law laid down in any judgment that a person who is appointed on purely ad D hoc basis for a fixed period by an authority other than the one who is competent to make regular appointment to the service and such appointment is not made by the specified recruiting agency is entitled to have his ad hoc service counted for the purpose of fixation of seniority. E Therefore, the respondents, who were appointed as Masters in different subjects, Physical Training Instructor and Hindi Teacher on purely ad hoc basis without following the procedure prescribed under the 1955 Rules are not entitled to have their seniority fixed on the basis F of total length of service. As a corollary to this, it is held that the direction given by the High Court for refixation of the respondents' seniority by counting the ad hoc service cannot be approved. [Paras 18, 24] [380-C-D; 387-A-D] G Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and others (1990) 2 SCC 715: 1990 (2) SCR 900; State of West Bengal v. Aghore Nath (1993) 3 SCC 371: 1993 (2) SCR 919; M.K. Shanmugan v. U.0.1. (2000) 4 SCC 476: 2000 (3) SCR 554; State of Haryana v. H Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and another (2000) STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH 361 AND ORS. 8 SCC 4: 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 322 and Dr. Chandra Prakash A v. State of U.P. (2002) 10 sec 710: 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 574 - referred to. Rudra Kumar Sain and others v. Union of India & others (2000) 8 SCC 25: 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 573 and S. Sumyan B and others v. Umi Niri & others (2010) 6 SCC 791: 2010 (4) SCR 829 - cited. Case Law Reference: 1990 (2) SCR 900 referred to Paras 5,7, 14,19 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 574 referred to Paras 7,9, 14,23 1993 (2) SCR 919 referred to Paras 9, 20 2000 (3) SCR 554 referred to Paras 9, 21 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 573 cited Para 9 2010 (4) SCR 829 cited Para 9 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 322 referred to Para 22 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5947 of 2012. c D E From the Judgment & Order dated 18.12.2008 of the High F Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 2409 of 2008. Neeraj K. Jain, Anubha Agarwal, N.N.S. Rana, Pratham Kant, Naresh Bakshi for the Appellants. P.S. Patwalia, Rajat Singh, A. Venayagam Balan, Ajay Singh Chauhan for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted. G H 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 10 S.C.R. A 2. On being selected by the District Level Committee which had considered the candidature of those sponsored by the Employment Exchanges, respondent Nos.1 to 13 were appointed as Masters in the subjects of Science, Maths and Social Studies, respondent No.14 was appointed as Physical B Training Instructor and respondent No.15 was appointed as Hindi Teacher purely on ad hoc basis between 1994 and 1996 by the District Education Officers. The relevant portions of one such order issued on 16.10.1995 are reproduced below: c "OFFICE OF THE DISTT. EDUCATION OFFICER, PANIPAT Order No.E-1/95/3515-65 Dated Panipat 16.10.1995 On the recommendation of the Distt. Level Committee, the following candidates are hereby appointed purely on ad hoc D basis as Master/Mistresses in the subject noted against them in the Haryana Education Service Non Gazetted Class II (School cadre) Men/Women branch (as the case may be) w.e.f. the they join their duty in the institution indicated against their names in the grade of Rs.1400-2600 plus usual allowances E sanctioned by the Haryana Government from time to time on the following terms and conditions:- SI.No Name and Place of Remarks F address of posting the candidate S.S. Master (Male}, General CategoN G j1 to 3 I xxxxxx I xxxxxxx xxxxxxx S,S. Master (Male} B.C. CategoN 11. I xxxxxx I xxxxxxx xxxxxxx H STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH 363 AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] S.S. Master. S.C. Category