Ambica Bhat vs State of J & K

R.C. Gandhi, J.—The petitioner by means of this petition seeks quashing of Order No. E1810/1287377 dated 27.12.1995, whereby the

petitioner's services have been terminated.

The petitioner was appointed as Jr. Assistant on ad hoc basis for a period of 60 days by the Director, Animal Husbandry Department,

JammuRespondent No. 4 vide his order dated 4.1.1996, which was extended by another for a period of 89 days, w.e.f. 6.3.1990 under order

dated 3.3.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to continue on ad hoc basis under Order No. E309/211011 dated 4.6.1990 issued by

respondent No. 4. The case of the petitioner was recommended for regularisation of ad hoc appointment to the General Administration Deptt. who

has not agreed with the recommendations and observed that the vacancy is required to be filled up by direct recruitment and the petitioner may

also seek consideration alongwith other candidates, who may apply seeking consideration for selection.

The respondents have filed objections stating therein that the petitioner has no right to continue in ad hoc arrangement which stand terminated.

The respondents cannot keep the petitioner on such arrangement for more than nine months in all in terms of the provisions of rule 14 of the Jammu

and Kashmir Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. It is also stated that the post of Junior Asstt. has to be filled up upon

a selection made by the SSRB and the respondents under no provision of law can regularise the services of the ad hoc employee. No statutory

provision of law or any right vested in the petitioner has been violated. The appointment of the petitioner on ad hoc basis was made against rule 14

of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1956 as the ad hoc appointments can only be made with the prior approval of the Chief Minister

in coordination and such arrangement shall in no case exceed three months on each occasion and not beyond 9 months in all. The power exercised

by the Director, Animal Husbandry, Jammu appointing the petitioner in ad hoc arrangement was arbitrary and cannot be protected in law also.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent finds support from

Rule 14(A) which reads as under :

""Temporary appointments : (1) Where it is necessary in the public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen and could not have been

foreseen, to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of service, class or category .....and the making of an appointment to such

vacancy in accordance with these rules would involve undue delay, excessive expenditure or administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority

may appoint a person otherwise than in accordance with these rules temporarily with the prior approval of Chief Minister in coordination until a

person is appointed in accordance with these rules but such temporary appointment shall in no case exceed three months on each occasion and not

more than nine months in all.

Apparently, the respondent No. 4 has appointed the petitioner in breach of the mandate of the law contained in rule 14 of the Classifications,

Control and Appeal Rules, 1956 and permitted the petitioner to continue beyond 9 months without any authority vested in him for continuing the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any provision of law or rule which vested any right in the petitioner to continue as ad

hoc employee beyond nine months and to seek regularisation. The ad hoc appointment of the petitioner being contrary to the rules, is without any

authority or law.

Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention has relied upon SLR Vol 69, 1990(6) page 54, which is not

applicable to the present case for the reasons that before the Hon'ble Apex Court in that case there was as Scheme of Kerala Water Supply

Authority and Regulations for appointment of staff and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that since the persons appointed by the Water

Supply Authority have been posted for a long time, their services have to be regularised. Whereas, in the case in hand, the appointment of the

petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Section 14 of the Rule 14 of the J&K Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956

and there is no other rule under which such ad hoc arrangement can be made or sustained. Therefore, the law laid down in the judgment (supra)

and relied upon by Mr. Chouhan is of no assistance to him.

The petitioner is not found entitled to the relief prayed for and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed alongwith accompanying CMP No.

IAI/96.