Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Mar 4: Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat today decided a controversy pertaining to the counting of adhoc period of judicial officers in regular judicial services and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Judicial Officers.
The appellants and private respondents were directly recruited as Munsifs after being selected on the basis of selection process undertaken by J&K Public Service Commission in the year 2000. Before they were substantively appointed, the appellants were appointed as Munsifs on adhoc basis on the basis of the selection made by the High Court by order dated 22.5.1996 and 1.10.1996 respectively as some of the posts of Munsifs in the lower judiciary were lying vacant.
Prior to their appointment on adhoc basis, the High Court issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up of the post of Munsif on adhoc basis. After receiving applications and conducting interview, the appellants and others were selected and appointed on adhoc basis. They were also directed to undergo basic training and after completion of training, posting orders were issued and they joined in the respective place of posting.
The adhoc service continued until the posts were advertised by the J&K Public Service Commission and selection and appointments were completed. The appellants also applied for selection and appointment on substantive basis, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the J&K Public Service Commission vide notification dated 14.5.1998. The private respondents also participated in the selection conducted by the J&K Public Service Commission and they were also appointed on permanent/regular basis by order dated 20.4.2000.
The claim of the appellants is that their adhoc service should also be counted along with the substantive/ regular service while reckoning seniority, as they have been appointed under Rule 42A of the J&K Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967 and their selection and appointment on adhoc basis was also in accordance with rules.
This contention was opposed by the State Public Service Commission, High Court and by the private respondents by contending that the appellants having been appointed as Munsiffs on adhoc basis, which is a stop-gap arrangement in accordance with Rule 42A, they cannot claim any right based on the adhoc appointment and the procedure for selection to the post of Munsif for filling up the substantive vacancy are entirely different, which are more rigorous in nature.
Merely because the appellants were appointed on adhoc basis and they were selected by the J&K Public Service Commission for substantive appointment, their earlier services cannot be reckoned for the purpose of seniority.
After hearing both the sides in length, Division Bench observed, “it is not in dispute that the appellants while serving as ad hoc Munsifs, applied for substantive appointment in terms of the notification dated 14.5.1998 issued by the J&K Public Service Commission and they also participated in the competitive examination in terms of the Recruitment Rules”.
“Based on the marks secured by the appellants in the competitive examination, they were called upon to attend viva-voce test along with other candidates and they also subjected themselves to oral test, for which marks were awarded. The merit list was prepared by the Public Service Commission based on the marks secured by all the candidates (written test as well as viva-voce) and selected the persons, including the appellants, based on the ranks secured by them in the selection”, the DB further observed.
“They were also appointed substantively in the year 2000 based on the select list and they have also joined in the substantive post, attended training, and thereafter the appellants have chosen to claim seniority by counting ad hoc service along with regular service rendered after substantive appointment. This claim was rejected by the High Court vide order No.11032-36195 dated 15.12.2000”, the DB said, adding “the conduct of the appellants viz-a-viz submitting application to Public Service Commission, participating in the selection process without demur, accepting the merit list, and joining in the substantive posts, clearly demonstrate that the appellants’ acquiescence for selection to the substantive appointment, and thereafter the appellants are turning around and claiming seniority to count their earlier temporary service along with regular service and the same is impermissible”.
“It is well settled principle of law that a candidate having participated in the selection process is stopped from raising the plea contrary to the selection made”, the DB said.
With these observations, Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of Writ Court.
Follow our WhatsApp channel