REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3286 OF 2007

CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN HOMEOPATHY     Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

BIPIN CHANDRA LAKHERA & ORS.                   Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Heard  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  and  

respondent  No.  1.   As  regards  the  other  respondents  in  

respect  of  whom  service  is  complete  no  one  has  entered  

appearance on their behalf so far.  

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned  

judgment & order dated 24.03.2004 passed by the High Court  

of Sikkim in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 542 of 1998.

The facts have been given in the impugned judgment  

and order and hence we are not repeating the same here,  

except where necessary.

The short question in this Appeal is whether  ad  

hoc service  of  respondent  No.  1  from  1984  before  his  

regularisation with effect from 05.01.1996 can be added for  

the purpose of seniority.  We are of the opinion that it  

cannot.

Admittedly,  respondent  No.  1  was  appointed  as  

Research  Assistant  (Homeopathy)  in  the  service  of  the  

appellant  on

    :1:

purely  ad  hoc basis  by  order  dated  03.02.1984  till  

31.03.1984 or till the post is filled on a regular basis  

whichever was earlier.  This appointment was done without  

any regular selection.

It may be noted that respondent No. 1 herein (Writ  

petitioner  before  the  High  Court)  had  not  applied  for  

appointment in response to any advertisement issued by the  

appellant.  In his application respondent No. 1 stated that  

“I have come to know through some reliable sources that  

there is a post of Research Assistant lying vacant in the  

Central Council for Research in Homeopathy.”  Accordingly,  

respondent  No.  1  was  offered  the  post  on  a  purely  

ad hoc basis vide order dated 03.02.1984 clearly stating  

that his appointment was till 31.03.1984 or till a regularly  

selected candidate joins, whichever was earlier.  Thus, this  

appointment was made without following any procedure. The  

tenure was extended by the appellant from time to time.

The post of Research Assistant was advertised in  

1986  and  respondent  No.  1  applied  for  the  post  and  was  

called  for  an  interview  before  a  Selection  Committee  on  

29.06.1987  but  was  not  found  suitable.  However,  he  was  

continued on            ad hoc basis in view of an interim  

order passed by the High Court in a writ petition.

:2:

The post was again advertised in 1995 for regular  

appointment and respondent No. 1 again applied, and this  

time he was successful and given regular appointment with  

effect from 05.01.1996.

It has been held by this Court in Ch. Narayana Rao  

Vs.  Union of India & Ors.,  (2010) 10 SCC 247,  and State  

of  West  Bengal  &  Ors.  Vs.   Aghore  Nath  Dey  &  Ors.,  

(1993) 3 SCC 371, that ad hoc service before regularisation  

cannot be counted for seniority.

It was contended by learned counsel for respondent  

No. 1 that some others similarly situate have been given  

retrospective  regularisation.  This is not correct.  No one  

has been given benefit of ad hoc service for the purpose of  

seniority. The persons mentioned in the writ petition are  

those  persons  who  had  been  selected  earlier,  whereas  

respondent No. 1 had not been selected.  Such persons have  

been given seniority only from the date of their regular  

appointment after selection.

It has been pointed out in paragraph 17 of the  

counter affidavit filed by the Council before the High Court  

that these persons were given seniority from the date of  

their regular appointment after a regular selection.  Thus,  

Dr.  Gautam  Rakshit  was  appointed  on    ad hoc basis on  

:3:

10.08.1987, but thereafter he faced a regular selection and  

was selected and given regular appointment on 12.04.1988.  

He has been given seniority from 12.04.1988 and not from  

10.08.1987.  Similar is the case of Dr. (Miss) I.M. Kumar,  

Dr. G.K. Mathew and Dr. Mohan Singh.  Hence, their cases are  

clearly distinguishable.

In view of the decision of this Court in  Ch.  

Narayana Rao's case (supra), we allow this Appeal and set  

aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and  

dismiss the writ petition.  No costs.

........................ J.  

(MARKANDEY KATJU)

NEW DELHI; ........................J. APRIL 20, 2011        (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)

:4: