CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN HOMEOPATHY v. BIPIN CHANDRA LAKHERA & ORS.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Markandey Katju
Gyan Sudha Misra
Judgment Date: 2011-04-20
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; the impugned High Court judgment is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed; no costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Central Council for Research in Homeopathy

Respondents

Bipin Chandra Lakhera
Others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S.N. Bhat

Counsels for Respondents

• Shrish Kumar Misra
• Mukul Singh
• Ajay Kr Singh

Case Synopsis & Summary

Central Council for Research in Homeopathy (the appellant) challenged the High Court’s decision in a writ petition filed by respondent No.1, who had been appointed on an ad hoc basis as Research Assistant (Homeopathy) in 1984 and later regularised in 1996. The central issue was whether the ad hoc service rendered before regularisation could be counted for seniority in the regular cadre. The appellant contends that ad hoc service cannot be counted for seniority, consistent with established precedents. The respondent had argued that some others in similar situations were given retrospective regularisation and seniority from the date of regular appointment; such contentions, however, are disputed by the Council. The Court recalls its earlier judgments in Ch. Narayana Rao v. Union of India (2010) 10 SCC 247 and State of West Bengal v. Aghore Nath Dey (1993) 3 SCC 371, which hold that ad hoc service prior to regularisation cannot count for seniority. The High Court’s view is not repeated; instead the Supreme Court, applying the Narayana Rao precedent, holds that the ad hoc period cannot be added to seniority and that the regular appointment date governs seniority. The Court distinguishes the counterexamples and confirms the principle. The appeal is allowed; the impugned High Court judgment is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed with no costs.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that ad hoc service prior to regularisation cannot count for seniority; regularisation on a future date based on selection is required for seniority, and ad hoc periods should not be added to seniority, in line with this Court’s precedents.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondent No.1 and counsel argued that some similarly situated individuals received retrospective regularisation and seniority; they contended that the ad hoc period should be reckoned in certain circumstances, or that there were distinguishing facts in those cases.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ch. Narayana Rao v. Union of India & Ors.	(2010) 10 SCC 247	Positive	The judgment relies on Narayana Rao to hold that ad hoc service prior to regularisation cannot be counted for seniority.
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Aghore Nath Dey & Ors.	(1993) 3 SCC 371	Positive	Cited as establishing the same principle regarding ad hoc service and seniority.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2011] 5 S.C.R. 505 CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN HOMEOPATHY A _V._ BIPIN CHANDRA LAKHERA & ORS. (Civil Appeal no.3286 of 2007) APRIL 20, 2011 B ## [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] - _Service Law: Seniority Adhoc service for the period before regularisation cannot be counted for seniority_ - _In the instant_ case, _respondent no. 1 appointed_ as _Research_ C _Assistant on adhoc_ basis _in 1984_ was _selected on regular post w._ e. _f. 5. 1. 1996_ - _Ad hoc service from 1984 till regularisation could not be added for the purpose of seniority._ _Ch. Narayana Rao v. Union of India_ & Ors. (2010) 10 D sec 247 - relied on. _State of West Bengal_ & Ors. _v. Aghore Nath Dey_ & Ors. - (1993) 3 sec 371 referred to. ## Case Law Reference: E (2010) 10 sec 247 Relied on Paras 9, 12 (1993) 3 sec 371 Referred to Para 9 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3286 of 2007. F From the Judgment & Order dated 24.03.2004 of the High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok in Writ Petition (C) No. 542 of 1998. S.N. Bhat for the Appellant. G Shrish Kumar Misra, Mukul Singh, Ajay Kr, Singh for the Respondents. The following order of the Court was delivered 505 H 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R. ## A ## **ORDER** 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1. As regards the other respondents in respect of whom service is complete no one has entered appearance on their 8[behalf ][so ][far. ] 2. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment & order dated 24.03.2004 passed by the High Court of Sikkim in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 542 of 1998. c 3. The facts have been given in the impugned judgment and order and hence we are not repeating the same here, except where necessary. 4. The short question in this Appeal is whether ad hoc service of respondent No. 1 from 1984 before his regularisation 0 with effect from 05.01.1996 can be added for the purpose of seniority. We are of the opinion that it cannot. 5. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 was appointed as Research Assistant (Homeopathy) in the service of the appellant E on purely ad hoc basis by order dated 03.02.1984 till 31.03.1984 or till the post is filled on a regular basis whichever was earlier. This appointment was done without any regular selection. F 6. It may be noted that respondent No. 1 herein (Writ petitioner before the High Court) had not applied for appointment in response to any advertisement issued by the appellant. In his application respondent No. 1 stated that "I have come to know through some reliable sources that there is a post of Research Assistant lying vacant in the Central Council G for Research in Homeopathy." Accordingly, respondent No. 1 was offered the post on a purely ad hoc basis vide order dated 03.02.1984 clearly stating that his appointment was till 31.03.1984 or till a regularly selected candidate joins, whichever was earlier. Thus, this appointment was made without following H CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN 507 HOMEOPATHY _y._ BIPIN CHANDRA LAKHERA any procedure. The tenure was extended by the appellant from A time to time .. 7. The post of Research Assistant was advertised in 1986 and respondent No. 1 applied for the post and was called for an interView before a Selection Committee on 29.06.1987 but 8 was not found suitable. However, he was continued on ad hoc basis in view of an interim order passed by the High Court in a writ petition. 8. The post was again advertised in 1995 for regular appointment and respondent No. 1 again applied, and this time C he was successful and given regular appointment with effect from 05.01.1996. 9. It has been held by this Court in _Ch. Narayana Rao Vs. Union of India_ & Ors., _(2010) 10_ SCC _247, and State of West_ D _f3engal_ & Ors. _Vs. Aghore Nath Dey_ & Ors., (1993) 3 SCC 371, that ad hoc service before regularisation cannot be counted for seniority. 10. It was contended by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that some others similarly situate have been given retrospective regularisation. This is not correct. No one has been given benefit of ad hoc service for the purpose of seniority. The persons mentioned in the writ petition are those persons who had been selected earlier, whereas respondent No. 1 had not been selected. Such persons have been given seniority only from the date of their regular appointment after selection. E F 11. It has been pointed out in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit filed by the Council before the High Court that these persons were given seniority from the date of their regular appointment after a regular selection. Thus, Dr. Gautam Rakshit was appointed on ad hoc basis on 10.08.1987, but thereafter . he faced a regular selection and was selected and given regular appointment on 12.04.1988. He has been given seniority from 12.04.1988 and not from 10.08.1987. Similar is the case of Dr. G H 508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R. - A (Miss) l.M. Kumar, Dr. G.K. Mathew and Dr. Mohan Singh. Hence, their cases are clearly distinguishable. 12. In view of the decision of this Court in _Ch. Narayana_ Rao's case (supra), we allow this Appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and dismiss 8 the writ petition. No costs. - D.G. Appeal allowed.