Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SODAGAR SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/01/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
These special leave petition have been filed against
the judgement and orders dated May 27,1996 and August
20,1996 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in the write petition and the Review Petition in
Regular Appeal No.191 of 1996 respectively.
The admitted position is that the petitioner was
appointed on ad had basis to the post of Legal Assistant in
the respondent-organisation . Rule 8 of the Punjab Roadways
(Ministerial) State Serve Class-III Rules ,1997 provides as
under:
"8. No person shall be appointed to
the service unless he has requisite
qualification and experience as
specified in column 3 of Appendix
’B’ to these rules in case of
direct appointment and appointment
by transfer and those specified in
column 4 of the aforesaid Appendix
in case of appointment by promotion
.
9 (1). appointment to the service
shall be made in the following
manner namely:-
a)
*
b) in the case of legal
Assistants:-
i) 20 percent 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
iii) by transfer or deputation of
an official already in service of
Government of India, if a suitable
candidate is not available by the
methods mentioned in sub clauses
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
(i) and (ii)."
A reading of Rule 8 would clearly indicate that all Law
Graduates serving in the Department are eligible for
consideration of promotion as Legal Assistants on the basis
of merit-cum-seniority subject to the qualification and the
condition mentioned in the Rules. Rule 9 (1) (b) postulates
that 20% of the posts of Legal Assistants are reserved for
direct recruitment. Admittedly, 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 appointment by direct recruitment and to give further
promotion to the petitioner 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,
there fore, was given to the respondents to make regular
recruitment and in the event of regular appointment not
being made within three months, the petitioner would not
continue any longer after the expiry of three months. Under
these circumstances, 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.