1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2731 OF 2001 Shri J.V. Deshpande & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. Dy. Controller of Stamps Central Stamp Deport ... Respondent Mr.M.S.Karnik, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr.V.S.Masurkar with Mr. D.A.Dube, Advocate for Respondents 1 and 2 CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.ROSHAN S. DALVI, JJ. DATED : 13TH AUGUST, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) 1. This Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed on 4th August, 2000 and thereby dismissing O.A.No. 900 of 1993 filed by the Petitioners. 2. The Petitioners came to be employed as Industrial Workmen (Group-D Employees) under the Indian Security Press, Nashik Road, Nashik. Under the recruitment rules for appointment to the post of lower division clerks, 90% of the vacancies were to be filled-in by direct recruitment and 10% were to be filled-in internally from amongst Group-D employees. After filling-in 10% quota by promotions, there were some vacancies in the post of Lower 2 Division Clerks in the quota of direct recruitment and therefore, conceding to the request of Union by an order dated 14th July, 1986 the Petitioners came to be appointed as Ad-hoc Lower Divisional Clerks and it was very specifically stated in the said order that they would be reverted to their original post of Industrial Cadre as soon as the candidates from the Staff Selection Commission became available. As the direct recruitment candidates by the Staff Selection Commission were not available, the Petitioners were continued on the available vacancies in the 10% quota, the General Manager of the India Security Press issued an order on 21st September, 1988 appointing the Petitioners on regular basis in the post of Lower Division Clerk and the said order specifically stated the dates of regular appointment against the name of each of the Petitioners i.e. 16th September, 1988. This appointment was, through the Selection Committee and against the 10% quota of promotees from Group-D employees. 3. More than 3 years later i.e. on 30th March, 1992 the Petitioners submitted a representation raising 2 demands viz: (a) that they should be given seniority right from the date of their appointment as Ad-hoc Lower Division Clerks, in the post of Lower Division Clerks and (b) Shri F.Y.Guruswamy was appointed on direct recruitment 3 basis on 12th October, 1987 and Shri B.V.Wasnik who was also similarly appointed from 9th November, 1987 be treated junior to them. This representation was not considered and therefore, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and filed O.A.No. 900 of 1993. 4. The Tribunal has dismissed the applications on the ground of delay as well as on merits by referring to the law laid down and relied upon by the Petitioners in the following cases:- 1. Union of India Vs. Ansusekar Guin & Or. AIR 1989 (SC) 373 2. Direct Recruit Class Engg. Officers. Assn. Vs. State of Maharashtra 1990(2) SCC, 715 and 3. Shri N.S. Saxena and Ors. Vs. ONGC, 1995 (1) GLR, 373 5. The Tribunal noted that the appointments of the Petitioners, as per the order dated 14th July, 1986, were purely on ad-hoc basis and in fact in excess of the 10% quota of the promotees, they were made clear that they would be reverted at any time as soon as the direct recruites Lower Division Clerks were available and they could not claim seniority from the date of appointment on ad-hoc basis. 4 These conditions were accepted by the Petitioners as well as their Union. Though the Union subsequently started addressing representations to the contrary, even otherwise the appointment order, which was issued on 21st September, 1988 specifying the date of regular appointment and that the seniority would be counted from that date was never challenged and their first representation was on 30th March, 1992. Obviously the demand made for seniority was hit by limitations. In fact they had kept mum for more than 3 ½ years, which also goes to show that the Petitioners were aware of their status so far as seniority is concerned and they submitted a representation only by way of an after thought. 6. Coming to the merits of the case it is admitted that on the date the Petitioners were appointed on ad-hoc basis as Lower Division Clerks, there was no vacancy in the 10% quota for promotion to the said post on regular basis. An ad-hoc appointee, who did not face the Selection Committee cannot claim seniority over a regularly appointed candidate. It was also pointed out before the Tribunal that the requirement of recruitment rules relating to the selection for the post of Lower Division Clerk was not followed in respect of the Petitioners when they were appointed as ad-hoc Lower Division Clerks. In addition, when they were holding the posting on ad-hoc 5 basis, they had failed in the typewriting test and were continued only because the regularly appointed candidates were not available. There is no dispute that Shri Guruswamy and Shri Wasnik were regular appointed from 12th October, 1987 and 9th November, 1987 respectively, whereas the appointment of the Petitioners on such regular post as Lower Division Clerks was only from 16th September, 2008. The Tribunal also noted that the judgments relied upon were not applicable in the instant case and more particularly because of the orders dated 14th July, 1986 as well as 21st September, 1988 read with the selection rules. 7. Hence, the view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any errors and challenge to the order of the Tribunal is devoid of merits. Consequently this Petition must fail and the same is hereby dismissed, but without any order as to costs. (SMT.ROSHAN S. DALVI, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)