1996 JTR(SC) 1078
1996 AIR(SC) 2775 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 3481 ; 1996 74 FLR 2080 ; 2010 5 JKJ(SC) 875 ; 1996 6 JT 725 ; 1996 LIC 2444 ; 1996 2 LLJ 795 ; 1997 2 RSJ 359 ; 1996 5 Scale 528 ; 1996 9 SCC 619 ; 1996 SCC(L&S) 1296 ; 1996 Supp3 SCR 663 ; 1996 4 SCT 60 ; 1996 5 SLR 170 ; 1996 4 UPLBEC 2755 ; 1996 KHC 1223 ; 1996 6 Supreme 141
1996(6) Supreme 141
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Dr. Surinder Singh Jamwal & Anr. -Appellants
versus
The State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9521 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20823/95)
Decided on 17-7-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : D. D. Thakur, Sr. Advocate, L.R. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Ashok Mathur, Ranjit Kumar & Ms. Anu Mohla, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Ad hoc appointments are only temporary appointments de hors the rules, pending regular recruitment without conferring any right to regularisation of service.
A) The relevant statutory framework governing recruitment to public services, as informed by the prior judgment in J&K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan, dictates that regular appointments must be made through the appropriate statutory rules, with the Public Service Commission responsible for processing and completing selections within prescribed timeframes. Any ad hoc appointments are considered temporary and do not confer a right to regularisation, but may be extended during pendency of appeals or stay orders, with age relaxation considered where necessary to enable candidates to apply.
B) Key legal principles include: ad hoc appointments are temporary and do not create a right to regularisation; recruitment must follow statutory rules and be conducted through the Public Service Commission; the life of a selection panel may be extended during stay orders; and age bar may necessitate relaxation under relevant rules.
Facts of the case:
The appellants were appointed on an ad hoc basis and continued in service for over 13 years, seeking regularisation. The High Court dismissed their petition relying on the ratio of J&K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan. The Supreme Court confirmed that ad hoc appointments do not attract regularisation and directed a structured process for regular recruitment through the Public Service Commission.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the appellants are barred by age for direct recruitment, that ad hoc appointments are temporary and governed by statutory rules, and that the panel may be extended during the interim period due to a stay order.
Issues:
Whether ad hoc employees who have served for over 13 years are entitled to regularisation; whether the High Court correctly applied the ratio in J&K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan; and whether age bar necessitates relaxation for regular recruitment.
Ratio Decidendi:
The settled law is that recruitment must be governed by statutory rules, with regular recruitment handled by the Public Service Commission, and ad hoc appointments are temporary without any right to regularisation, subject to possible age relaxation.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of with no costs, the appellants may apply for regular recruitment after vacancy notification, and the State is directed to notify vacancies and make appointments in accordance with the statutory timeline.
A) The relevant statutory framework governing recruitment to public services, as informed by the prior judgment in J&K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan, dictates that regular appointments must be made through the appropriate statutory rules, with the Public Service Commission responsible for processing and completing selections within prescribed timeframes. Any ad hoc appointments are considered temporary and do not confer a right to regularisation, but may be extended during pendency of appeals or stay orders, with age relaxation considered where necessary to enable candidates to apply.
B) Key legal principles include: ad hoc appointments are temporary and do not create a right to regularisation; recruitment must follow statutory rules and be conducted through the Public Service Commission; the life of a selection panel may be extended during stay orders; and age bar may necessitate relaxation under relevant rules.
Facts of the case:
The appellants were appointed on an ad hoc basis and continued in service for over 13 years, seeking regularisation. The High Court dismissed their petition relying on the ratio of J&K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan. The Supreme Court confirmed that ad hoc appointments do not attract regularisation and directed a structured process for regular recruitment through the Public Service Commission.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the appellants are barred by age for direct recruitment, that ad hoc appointments are temporary and governed by statutory rules, and that the panel may be extended during the interim period due to a stay order.
Issues:
Whether ad hoc employees who have served for over 13 years are entitled to regularisation; whether the High Court correctly applied the ratio in J&K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan; and whether age bar necessitates relaxation for regular recruitment.
Ratio Decidendi:
The settled law is that recruitment must be governed by statutory rules, with regular recruitment handled by the Public Service Commission, and ad hoc appointments are temporary without any right to regularisation, subject to possible age relaxation.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of with no costs, the appellants may apply for regular recruitment after vacancy notification, and the State is directed to notify vacancies and make appointments in accordance with the statutory timeline.
ORDER
Leave granted. We have heard counsel on both sides.
2. The controversy raised in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court reported in J&K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan1. It is not in dispute that the appellants were recruited on ad hoc basis and have been continuing as such. It is their contention that since they had put in more than 13 years of service they are entitled to regularisation of service and approached the High Court for direction to regularise their services. The High Court has followed the ratio in the above judgment and dismissed the petition. In the light of the judgment of this Court the settled legal position now is that the recruitment to the service should be governed by the appropriate statutory rules. Under the rules the regular recruitment to the posts shall be made by the Public Service Commission. Consequentially, the ad hoc appointments would be only temporary appointments de hors the rules, pending regular recruitment without conferring any right to regularisation of service. This Court in Narinder Mohan s case (supra) had given the following directions :
"Accordingly, we set aside the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court and confirm those of the Single Judge and direct the State Government of the J&K to notify the vacancies to the PSC which would process and complete the selection, as early as possible, within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this order. The State Government should on receipt of the recommendation, make appointments in the order mentioned in the selection list within a period of two months thereafter. Since the respondents have been continuing an ad hoc doctors, they shall continue till the regularly selected candidates are appointed. They are also entitled to apply for selection. In case any of the respondents are barred by age, the State Government is directed to consider the cases for necessary relaxation under Rule 9(3) of the age qualification. If any of the respondents are not selected, the ad hoc appointment shall stand terminated with the appointment of the selected candidate. The direction sought for by Dr. Vinay Rampal cannot be given. His appeal is accordingly dismissed and the State appeal is also dismissed. The appeals of the PSC are accordingly allowed but in the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs."
3. Following the above directions, there shall be a direction to the State Government to notify the vacancies to the Public Service Commission within a period of two months from today. On notification so made, it would be open to the appellants to apply for regular recruitment. It would be for the PSC to consider the respective claims of the candidates who have applied for and to make necessary selection according to rules. On selection so made and recommendation made to the State Government, the State Government will make appointments as per rules within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the list of the selected candidates from the PSC. The PSC is directed to complete the process of the selection within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the requisition. The State Government after receipt of the lists shall make the necessary appointments in accordance with law. Till then the appellants would continue only on ad hoc basis till the regularly selected candidates are appointed.
4. It is obvious that the appellants have become barred by age for the direct recruitment. It would, therefore, be necessary that the State Government would relax the necessary age qualification so as to enable them to apply for and seek recruitment through PSC.
5. The contesting respondents who have come on record have stated that the panel stands expired during the interregnum due to the order of suspension granted by this Court. Under these circumstances, the life of the panel is extended for the period during which the stay order is in operation.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Appeal disposed of.
*******