Supreme Court clarifies seniority of ad-hoc and regular LDCs: Shyam Sunder Oberoi vs. District and Session Judge (2021)

Date of the Judgment: December 8, 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 744
Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka. The judgment was authored by Justice Rastogi.
Can ad-hoc employees who are regularized later claim seniority from their initial date of appointment over those who were appointed through a regular selection process? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question regarding the seniority of Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) in the subordinate judiciary of Delhi. This case clarifies the principles for determining seniority when ad-hoc employees are later regularized.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the seniority of Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) in the subordinate judiciary of Delhi. Some LDCs were initially appointed on an ad-hoc basis between 1983 and 1989, while others were appointed substantively through a regular selection process in 1987. The ad-hoc employees’ terms were extended periodically.

In 1990, the ad-hoc employees filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi seeking regularization of their services. During the pendency of this petition, a fresh recruitment process was initiated. The ad-hoc employees expressed concerns that their seniority would be jeopardized if new candidates were appointed.

The High Court, in an interim order on August 20, 1992, reserved 26 vacancies for ad-hoc employees and granted them protection of seniority. Subsequently, on November 12, 1992, the High Court exempted the ad-hoc employees from the written test and directed that they be considered for regularization after qualifying a typing test.

The District and Session Judge, Delhi, regularized the services of ad-hoc LDCs who qualified the typing test, effective from their initial date of appointment, on November 17, 2000. However, the order also stated that their seniority would be fixed separately according to rules.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The order of the District and Session Judge, Delhi, dated November 17, 2000, was challenged by the present appellants and others, who were appointed as LDCs through open selection in 1987, by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 7462 of 2000 before the High Court.

A Single Judge of the High Court, on March 10, 2015, ruled that the ad-hoc employees could be regularized but would not be given seniority over the regularly appointed LDCs. The Single Judge relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Association Vs. State of Maharashtra [1990(2) SCC 712].

The ad-hoc employees then filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 328 of 2015, challenging the Single Judge’s order. The Division Bench of the High Court, on December 6, 2018, set aside the Single Judge’s order and held that the ad-hoc employees’ seniority should be counted from their initial date of appointment. The Division Bench emphasized the High Court’s order dated August 20, 1992, which had protected the seniority of ad-hoc employees.

Legal Framework

The judgment notes that there were no specific rules or guidelines available for determining the seniority of LDCs in the ministerial staff of the subordinate judiciary of Delhi. The court considered the principles of seniority and regularization of service in the absence of specific rules.

The court referred to the order dated November 17, 2000, by the District and Session Judge, which regularized the services of ad-hoc LDCs from their initial date of appointment, but also stated that their seniority would be fixed separately according to rules.

Arguments

The appellants (regularly appointed LDCs) argued that the ad-hoc employees could not claim seniority over them, as they were appointed through a regular selection process, while the ad-hoc employees were appointed for a fixed term and qualified the typing test later.

The respondents (ad-hoc LDCs) argued that since their services were regularized from the date of their initial appointment, their seniority should also be counted from that date. They relied on the High Court’s interim order dated August 20, 1992, which had protected their seniority.

The Division Bench of the High Court had emphasized the order dated August 20, 1992, which was passed in the earlier proceedings in Civil Writ Petition No. 1820 of 1990. The Division Bench held that the filling up of vacancies on a regular basis would be subject to the right of the present appellants in the matter of seniority, as and when they were regularized.

Innovativeness of the argument: The respondents creatively used the interim order of the High Court to claim seniority from their initial date of appointment, arguing that regularization from that date should naturally entail seniority from that date as well.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue was:

• Whether ad-hoc employees, who were later regularized, could claim seniority from their initial date of appointment over regularly appointed employees.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court upheld the view of the Single Judge of the High Court, who relied on Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Association Vs. State of Maharashtra [1990(2) SCC 712] to hold that ad-hoc employees cannot claim seniority over regularly appointed employees.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors:

• The fact that the appellants were appointed through a regular selection process, which involved a written test and typing test in 1987.
• The respondents were initially appointed on an ad-hoc basis for a fixed term, and they qualified the typing test at a later stage.
• The absence of specific rules or guidelines for determining the seniority of LDCs in the ministerial staff of the subordinate judiciary of Delhi.
• The Court found that the Division Bench of the High Court misread the interim order dated August 20, 1992.

The court emphasized the importance of the regular selection process and the fact that the ad-hoc employees were not initially appointed through a competitive process. The court also noted that the regularization of the ad-hoc employees was not a promotion, but rather a regularization of their initial ad-hoc appointment.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the principle that those who are appointed through a regular selection process should not be superseded in seniority by those who were initially appointed on an ad-hoc basis and regularized later.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretation that regularization from the date of initial appointment would automatically grant seniority from that date. However, the Court rejected this interpretation, holding that regularization does not automatically entail seniority, especially when the initial appointment was on an ad-hoc basis and there are no specific rules governing seniority.

The Court’s final decision was that the ad-hoc employees could not claim seniority over the regularly appointed employees.

The court stated:

• “In our considered view, the Division Bench has committed a manifest error under the impugned judgment in granting them the benefit of seniority who were appointed on ad­hoc basis as LDCs from the date of their regularization which was neither granted by the District and Session Judge by its Order dated 17th November, 2000 nor they were entitled for under the law.”
• “We consider it appropriate to observe that the employees who were appointed on ad­hoc basis and qualified typing test at the later stage, in absence of the scheme of rules in determining seniority, at least could not have a right to march over such of the employees who were appointed on substantive basis after going through the process of selection for holding regular selection and their right of seniority in no manner be relegated qua such of the ad­hoc employees who qualified typing test at a later stage and regularized subsequently from the date of initial appointment like in the instant case by an Order dated 17th November, 2000.”
• “Indisputedly, the Order dated 20th August, 1992 in no manner was related to determination of seniority qua the present appellants who were recruited through open selection after qualifying the written test followed by typing test in the year 1987.”

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and restored the order of the Single Judge.

Key Takeaways

• Ad-hoc employees who are later regularized cannot automatically claim seniority from their initial date of appointment over those who were appointed through a regular selection process.
• Regularization of service does not automatically confer seniority from the date of initial appointment, especially in the absence of specific rules.
• The process of regular selection carries weight when determining seniority.
• Interim orders of the court should be interpreted strictly within their context.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that ad-hoc employees, upon regularization, cannot claim seniority from their initial date of appointment over those who were appointed through a regular selection process. This clarifies that regularization does not automatically grant seniority from the initial date of appointment, especially in the absence of specific rules. This case reinforces the principle that regularly selected candidates cannot be superseded by ad-hoc employees in matters of seniority.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Shyam Sunder Oberoi vs. District and Session Judge clarifies that ad-hoc employees who are later regularized cannot claim seniority from their initial date of appointment over those who were appointed through a regular selection process. The Court emphasized the importance of the regular selection process and held that regularization does not automatically confer seniority from the initial date of appointment. This judgment provides clarity on the principles governing seniority in cases involving ad-hoc and regularly appointed employees in the absence of specific rules.