87 1 re e 6 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AD HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR DATE OF DEClSlON1121010 e O Avnish Tyagi etitioner C I VERSUS C5 ChiefAdministrator HUDA 8t Anre I e e e Z CORAM 2 C HONBLE MRJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI I 08 7 PRESENT2 Mr2S Hooda Advocatefor thepetitloner Z MrRD Sharma DAG Haryana rla Permod Kohli J The short controversyin the writ petitionrelates to seniorityby counting ad hoc service on The petitioner was appointed as 4eee Junior Engineer1tl the HUDA vide letter dated 2161994 P ln the pay scale of Rs16406030037512900 The petitioner continued to serve on ad hoc basistil l vide order dated 2262004 74 tenalive seniorityIist of Jl 4llorticulturelin HIJDA was issued vide nlemo dated 3 122008 It is allegedthat senioritywas fixed by adoptingpickand choosepolicyIn similar cases periodof ad hoc Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.22 12: 12 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 88 r b CWP No717 of2010 2 service was counted towards senioritywhereas the petitioner was denied benefltof ad hoc service towards seniorityThe filed to the tenative seniority Iist and prayedfor grant of from the dateof his initial ad hoc The claiin of the petitioner is that his name shouldhave been shown at SrlVo 13 whereasin r the tenatlve sen1oritylist his name has been shown at SrlVo7 0 of the was not decided by the It lS C also the case ofthe that on the basisofthe tenativeseniority list 5 C5 lEs were givencurrent dutycharge as SD at various Sub I Divisions in HUDA ltis also alleged that one JagbirSingh Z JE and one Vinay Kumar have been grantedcurrent dutychargeby C counting their ad hoc service while similar treatment has beendenied to the I petitionerlt is also the case of the petitioner that without his 08 to the tenativesenioritylist a flnal senioritylist has been issued m vide Circulardated 720 10 and even before that current dutychargc was 7 Z givento some juniorengineers who are said to be juniorto the petitioner 11 The petitioner 61ed CWP No7204 of 2010 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 232010 directingthe to decide the of the petitionerPursuant to the aforesaid direction filed by the petitioner has been decided vide order dated 1432010 Annexure P It is thisorder which is impugned in the present r writ petitionThe petitioner has not onlysought of the aforesaid order but hassoughtfurtherdirection for fixation of his seniority over and abovevariousJEshy counting his ad hoc servlce 1 have heard learned counsel for th4 petitiotlerand perusedthe impugned order It is statedin theimpugned order thal the petitioners initial Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.22 12: 12 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 89 4V V 9 CWP No4717of2010 3 1S appointmentwas on purelyad hoc basis for 89 dayswhich was extended from time to tim It is furthermentionedthat his on regular basiswas a fresh andthus he isnot entitledto any seniority Ill Vlew of theHaryana Governmentinstructionslnotificationdated l 102003 The petitioner has relied upon a of this Coun in case of r Hanumant Singhand others VS Statc of Haryanaand others2008 SCT 427 wherein it has been held that ad hoc appolntinentlnade by 0 followingdue procedure of Iaw and will entitle C5 the person to count the ad hoc servicetowardsseniorityThis judgment has I no to the case of the Thereis not even a whisper 111 Z the writ petition that initial was by adopting due proceduieof law inviting etc in consonance with the I mandateof Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India Even the 08 order Annexure I l l does not indlcate that the initial m appolntmenton ad hoc basis was byadopting due procedure of law In case 7 Z of Hanumant Singhand others supral senioritywas grantedonly keeping ln vlew the fact that the initial was by adopting the of Iaw This petitionis liable to be dismissed on two grounds flrstly initial of the petitioner on ad hoc basis was without 1 any valid procedure of Iaw and without colnplying with mandate ofArticles 14and 16 ofthe Constitutionoflndia This issue is no more res reemV integra and has been settledby a ConstitutionalBench of Honble Supreme Court in the case of The Direct RecruitCIass41 Engineering Officers Association and others Ve State of Maharashtra and others AIR 1990 SC 1607 and a Full Bench of this Court in case of Chambel SinghVS State of Haryana 1995 PLR 152 In the case of Drect Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.22 12: 12 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 90 f CWP No14717 of2010 4 V Recruit Class II Officers Association ipral the Honble Court has held as underl 44To sum up we holdthat Al Once an incumbentis to a post accordlng to rule his seniorityhas to be counted from the date of 1 r his appointtnentand not accordingto dale of his 0 conflrmationThe conoJaryof the above rule is that 0 where the initial appointmentIS only ad hoc and not C5 accordingto rules and made as a stotap arrangemenl I theofficiation in such post cannot be taken into account Z for consideringthe seniority suppliedl 11 In the case of Chambel Singh supral Full Bench of this Court I observedas under 08 141n the light of whal has been noticed above submissionsof Sh Gurnam Slnghcounsel for the 7 Z petitionerare totally becausethere has been no break in service cannot be construed as a factorentitlingsuch an incumbentto tagthe perlodspent byhim as an ad hocemployee XXX xxx xxx 161nview of what has been discussed above weareof eeee the view that ad hoc service per se cannot be counted to determineappointees seniority in the cadre 37 Theaforesaidobservationsofthe Honble ApexCourt as also the Full Benchofthis Court are fullyapplicable to the case ofthe petitioner all those persons who are Iikely to be efTectedby the Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.22 12: 12 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 91 rr 1e CWP No14717 of2010 5 have not been iinpleaded as part It is settled of Iaw that any person who is likelyto be adverselyaffected is a partyand no order can be passedin absenceof such person In view of the above I find no merit in this writ which is dismissed 0 m 313e PERMOD KOHLII 44 0 JUDGE 0 I 0 1 I N Whheo be rderred poner or noYES Z C I 08 7 Z ll 1 Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.22 12: 12 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document