Writ Petition No. 390 of 2004 · Uttaranchal High Court · 2006

petitioner is that the persons namely Sri A.K. Pandey, Sri A.K. Shukla and Sri S.K. Shukla who were appointed on ad-hoc basis the year 1985 were regularized on

21.3.1991 i.e. the same day on which the petitioner(cid:146)s services were regularized.

6. These persons regularization have been made with retrospective effect. After modification of the order dated 21.3.1991, they have been given the regularization w.e.f. 2.6.1988 so that their ad-hoc services may be counted from the year 1988 towards their seniority. This factual position has been clarified in Para 7 of the counter affidavit.

7. The decision to regularize the appointees was taken in the year 1988 and the Selection Committee was constituted in the same year i.e. 1988 and cut-off date for considering the candidates who were appointed on or before 21.1.1986 was earmarked for regularization in the year 1988. Sri A.K. Pandey, Sri A.K. Shukla and Sri S.K. Shukla were the appointees of the year 1985 i.e. prior to the cut-off date i.e. 21.1.1986. Their cases were left over in the selection of 1988 but the Selection Committee regularized the year 1991. Since they were entitled to be regularized in the year 1988 selection, therefore, they have been given the regularization w.e.f. 1988, therefore, we do not find any contention of learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. The Rule specifically provides purpose of determining the seniority, ad-hoc service shall not be counted and it is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis merely be moving an application. Even for ad-hoc appointment, the posts were not advertised and no selection was held, therefore, the period of the appointment of the petitioner before the date of his regularization will not be counted for the purpose of seniority.

9. The third contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his ad-hoc services have been counted by the respondents for the purpose of granting him time scale. The Board(cid:146)s circular by which the time-scale has been granted to the petitioner provides that 8 years total service is to be counted for grant of time scale. In case of the petitioner, this included ad-hoc service also. There is a difference between total service rendered and substantive service rendered. For purpose determining seniority, substantive service rendered is taken into account while for grant of time- scale, the total service that may include ad-hoc service could be counted terms of the Board(cid:146)s Circular. Therefore, this argument of learned counsel petitioner is also rejected.

10. Thus, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.) Rajeev Dang