Ad Hoc Employee Lacks Statutory Right to Regularization or Seniority From Date of Initial Appointment.

The Respondent was appointed as a Lecturer (Ayurveda) on a purely ad hoc basis on September 21, 1998, following a recruitment notice that specified the temporary nature of the post

In 2013, the "Delhi Health Service – Teaching Cadre of Indian System of Medicine Rules, 2013" (2013 DHS Rules) were notified. Rule 6(iii) provided for the regularization of ad hoc teachers appointed up to 2003, effective from the date of an Office Memorandum dated October 7, 2008

The Respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) seeking regularization from his initial date of appointment (1998)

The Tribunal, via orders dated February 16, 2016, and March 19, 2018, directed the Petitioners to regularize the Respondent from 1998

The Petitioners challenged these orders via the present Writ Petition, arguing that regularization can only take effect from the date prescribed by the statutory rules

1. Whether an ad hoc employee, in the absence of applicable statutory rules, can claim regularization from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing regularization from 1998 in contravention of Rule 6(iii) of the 2013 DHS Rules

The court primarily applied Rule 6(iii) and Rule 9 of the 2013 DHS Rules, which establish the legal fiction for "Initial Constitution of the Service," fixing the date of regularization as October 7, 2008

It relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, which mandates that regularization must strictly adhere to statutory rules and government instructions to prevent backdoor entries

The court also distinguished G.P. Doval v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P., noting that seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of ad hoc appointment when specific statutory rules (Rule 9) govern the field

The court reasoned that the Respondent’s initial appointment was explicitly ad hoc and temporary, as evidenced by the 1998 recruitment notice and appointment letter

It found that the Tribunal erred by neglecting the statutory mandate of Rule 6(iii) of the 2013 DHS Rules, which explicitly deems the appointment of such ad hoc staff to be regular only from October 7, 2008

Since the Respondent did not challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 6(iii), the Rule’s provisions are binding

The court further observed that a selection process for ad hoc posts differs from regular recruitment as it may discourage eligible candidates seeking permanent tenure

Regarding seniority, the court held that under Rule 9(ii), seniority is to be determined by the Government and cannot automatically revert to the date of ad hoc service

The Court upheld the regularization effective from October 7, 2008, as per the statutory rules

It directed the Government to determine the Respondent’s seniority under Rule 9(ii) within two months and to decide on his entitlement to pensionary benefits within three months, considering his superannuation during the pendency of the litigation