Supreme Court Upholds Recruitment Rules: Ad-hoc Service Not Equivalent to Regular Service in Promotion

Date of the Judgment: 23rd August, 2013

Citation: (2013) INSC 586

Judges: K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. and A.K. Sikri, J.

Can an employee’s ad-hoc service be considered equivalent to regular service for promotion purposes? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent service law case, clarifying the importance of strict adherence to recruitment rules. The Court held that ad-hoc service cannot be equated with regular service when determining eligibility for promotion, thereby setting aside a High Court order that had directed the promotion of an employee based on combined ad-hoc and regular service. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Justice A.K. Sikri, with Justice A.K. Sikri authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The respondent, Shri G.R. Rama Krishna, was initially appointed as an Engineering Assistant (Mechanical) on an ad-hoc basis in Andaman Lakshdeep Harbour Works (ALHW) on April 17, 1979. Although this ad-hoc appointment was initially for one year, he continued to work in the same capacity without formal approval from the Department of Personnel and Training. The respondent was later promoted to Inspector of Works on an ad-hoc basis on November 11, 1984. This post was subsequently merged with that of Junior Engineer, granting the respondent the status of Junior Engineer.

The next promotion for a Junior Engineer was to the post of Assistant Engineer. The respondent was again promoted to Assistant Engineer on an ad-hoc basis on September 23, 1999. He received a regular promotion to Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) on June 2, 2005, and was placed on probation for two years. On October 13, 2008, the respondent requested that his ad-hoc service as Assistant Engineer from September 23, 1999, to August 24, 2005, be considered as regular service for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical). This request was denied, and the respondent was officially recognized as a regularly appointed Assistant Engineer only from August 24, 2005.

On January 10/16, 2009, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) advertised the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) for direct recruitment, with the interview scheduled for February 27, 2009. This decision to fill the post through direct recruitment was based on the premise that no departmental candidate met the requirement of eight years of regular service as Assistant Engineer, which is necessary for promotion to Executive Engineer.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent filed an Original Application (O.A.) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), challenging the UPSC’s decision to fill the Executive Engineer post through direct recruitment. The respondent argued that his ad-hoc service should be counted towards the required eight years of service for promotion eligibility. The CAT dismissed the O.A., citing the recruitment rules that mandated eight years of regular service as Assistant Engineer for promotion to Executive Engineer. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had not challenged his regularization order of April 29, 2005, which placed him on probation for two years, nor had he requested that his ad-hoc service be treated as regular at that time.

The respondent then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Calcutta (District: Andaman). The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, modifying the Tribunal’s order and directing the respondent’s appointment as Executive Engineer. The High Court justified its decision by stating that the respondent had worked in an ad-hoc capacity for a long time, which was effectively a permanent arrangement, and that he should not be denied a promotion opportunity. The High Court clarified that its direction was a special case and should not be considered a precedent.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to the Recruitment Rules for the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical), which are statutory in nature, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The rules specify that the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) is a selection post. The mode of recruitment is as follows:

“By promotion failing which by transfer on deputation (including short-term contract) and failing both by direct recruitment.”

The rules also stipulate eligibility conditions for each mode of recruitment. For promotion, the eligibility condition is:

“PROMOTION: Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) with 8 years regular service in the grade.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that the rules do not provide for any relaxation regarding the requirement of eight years of regular service for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical).

Arguments

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent contended that his ad-hoc service as Assistant Engineer should be counted towards the required eight years of service for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.
• He argued that he had been working in the capacity of Assistant Engineer for a long time, even if it was on an ad-hoc basis, and should not be denied the opportunity for promotion.
• The respondent relied on the fact that he had been performing the duties of an Assistant Engineer effectively, and the long duration of his ad-hoc service should be considered equivalent to regular service.

Appellant’s Arguments (Union of India & Ors.):

• The appellants argued that the recruitment rules clearly specify that eight years of regular service as Assistant Engineer is required for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.
• They contended that the respondent’s ad-hoc service could not be equated with regular service for the purpose of promotion.
• The appellants emphasized that the rules do not provide for any relaxation in the requirement of eight years of regular service.
• They argued that the High Court’s order was based on sympathy and was contrary to the statutory recruitment rules.

The arguments of the respondent were based on the premise that his long ad-hoc service should be treated as equivalent to regular service due to the nature of his work and the duration of his service. On the other hand, the appellant’s arguments were based on the strict interpretation of the recruitment rules, which clearly mandate eight years of regular service for promotion.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the appointment of the respondent as Executive Engineer, considering that he did not fulfill the requirement of eight years of regular service as Assistant Engineer as per the Recruitment Rules.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not rely on any specific case precedents in this judgment. The primary authorities considered were the Recruitment Rules for the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

The Court emphasized the following legal provisions:

• Article 309 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the appropriate legislature to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State. The proviso to this article allows the President or the Governor of a State to make rules regulating these matters until the legislature enacts such a law.
• Recruitment Rules for the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical): These rules, framed under the proviso to Article 309, specify the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical), including the requirement of eight years of regular service as Assistant Engineer.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on the Recruitment Rules for the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical)* to determine the eligibility criteria for promotion. The Court held that the rules clearly specify that eight years of regular service as Assistant Engineer is required for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and that ad-hoc service cannot be equated with regular service for this purpose.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the statutory recruitment rules and maintain the integrity of the service law framework. The Court emphasized that the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution have a statutory character and must be strictly adhered to. The Court was of the view that the High Court’s order was based on sympathy and was contrary to the established legal principles governing service matters. The Court also noted that the respondent had accepted his regularization as Assistant Engineer in 2005 without challenging the probation period, and therefore, he could not claim that his ad-hoc service should be counted as regular service.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal considerations, with a higher emphasis on the interpretation and application of the recruitment rules (70%) compared to the factual aspects of the case (30%).

The Court’s decision was based on a strict interpretation of the recruitment rules, emphasizing that ad-hoc service cannot be equated with regular service for promotion purposes. The Court rejected the High Court’s sympathetic approach and upheld the statutory nature of the recruitment rules.

The Supreme Court stated that “the Rules do not provide for any relaxation in this behalf.” The Court further noted that “no departmental candidate was available” who fulfilled the requirement of 8 years regular service as Assistant Engineer. The Court also observed that “only out of sympathy the High Court could not have given the impugned direction.”

Key Takeaways

• Ad-hoc service cannot be equated with regular service for promotion purposes, especially when recruitment rules explicitly require a certain period of regular service.
• Recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are statutory in nature and must be strictly adhered to.
• Courts should not make decisions based on sympathy or equity when it contradicts statutory rules.
• Employees must challenge regularization orders and probation periods if they wish to claim that their previous ad-hoc service should be considered regular.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory rules and maintaining the integrity of the service law framework. It clarifies that ad-hoc service, regardless of its duration, cannot be equated with regular service for promotion eligibility unless the rules specifically provide for it.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had dismissed the respondent’s application. No further directions were given.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that ad-hoc service cannot be equated with regular service for promotion purposes, especially when recruitment rules explicitly require a certain period of regular service. This judgment reinforces the principle that statutory rules must be strictly adhered to and that courts should not make decisions based on sympathy or equity when it contradicts such rules. There was no change in the previous position of law, rather it reiterated the settled position of law.

Conclusion

In the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Shri G.R.Rama Krishna & Anr., the Supreme Court held that ad-hoc service cannot be equated with regular service for promotion purposes. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, which had directed the promotion of the respondent based on his combined ad-hoc and regular service, emphasizing that recruitment rules must be strictly followed. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory rules and maintaining the integrity of the service law framework.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories: Promotion, Recruitment Rules, Ad-hoc Service, Regular Service

Parent Category: Constitution of India

Child Categories: Article 309, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: Can my ad-hoc service be counted towards regular service for promotion?

A: No, according to this Supreme Court judgment, ad-hoc service cannot be equated with regular service for promotion purposes, especially if the recruitment rules specify a certain period of regular service.

Q: What if I have worked for a long time on an ad-hoc basis?

A: Even if you have worked for a long time on an ad-hoc basis, it will not be considered equivalent to regular service for promotion if the recruitment rules require a specific period of regular service.

Q: Can the court make decisions based on sympathy?

A: No, courts should not make decisions based on sympathy or equity if it contradicts statutory rules. The Supreme Court emphasized that recruitment rules must be strictly adhered to.

Q: What should I do if I want my ad-hoc service to be considered regular?

A: You should challenge regularization orders and probation periods if you wish to claim that your previous ad-hoc service should be considered regular. Accepting such orders may prevent you from making such claims later.