IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 22171 of 2009 BETWEEN: B.K. Shinde. S/o. Sri Krishna B. Shinde, Occ: Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Rep. by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Ministry of Labour and Employment Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, 14 Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. 2 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – I (HRM), Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, No.3-4-763, Barkatpura Chaman, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. SIVA Counsel for the Respondents: MR. B. NARASIMHA SARMA The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Petitioner is the applicant in O.A.No.632 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and the said OA was dismissed by the impugned order dated 08.10.2009. 2. In the aforesaid OA the petitioner questioned the office order of the second respondent/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in ref No.AP/RO/HYD/Admn.II/Trf.(2)/2009 dated 23.07.2009 in canceling the earlier ad hoc promotion order dated 29.12.2008 promoting the petitioner from the post of EO/AAO at SRO, Amritsar to the post of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner at RO, Hyderabad on purely temporary and ad hoc basis as a stop gap arrangement to meet the administrative exigencies from the date of assumption of charge to the higher post till the posts are filled up on regular basis or until further orders. The said appointment would be without prejudice to the seniority and the claim for promotion on regular basis of all other eligible officers and it will neither confer on them any rights to claim for promotion on regular basis, nor seniority in the post of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. 3. However, at the time of petitioner’s ad hoc promotion, investigation in respect of disciplinary case was pending against him and no decision was taken and later disciplinary proceedings were sought to be initiated as per the procedure under DOPT instructions dated 24.12.1986, which reads as under: 6. Procedure to be followed when disciplinary proceeding is initiated against a Government servant officiating in a higher post on ad hoc basis. – The question whether a Government servant appointed to a higher post on ad hoc basis should be allowed to continue in the ad hoc appointment when a disciplinary proceeding is initiated against him has been considered by this Department and it has been decided that the procedure outlined below shall be followed in such cases – (i) Where an appointment has been made purely on ad hoc basis against a short-term vacancy or a leave vacancy or if the Government servant appointed to officiate until further orders in any other circumstances has held the appointment for a period less than one year; the Government servant shall be reverted to the post held by him substantively or on a regular basis, when a disciplinary proceeding is initiated against him. In view of the above, in order to initiate disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner necessarily has to be revered to the post held by him earlier as his appointment was purely on temporary and ad hoc basis and more so, the petitioner has put in only seven months of service in the ad hoc promotional post, as such, the reversion order dated 16.07.2009 was issued, as the petitioner has been issued a charge memorandum dated 17.06.2009 and he was relieved by order dated 23.07.2009. 3. The tribunal considered the rival contentions of both the parties and held that the petitioner’s appointment is purely on temporary and ad hoc basis and as per the Government of India instructions under DoP&T OM dated 24.12.1986 and DoP&T OM dated 30.02.1988, the fact that appointment is ad hoc and that such appointment will not bestow on a person a claim for regular appointment, has been clearly spelt out in the order of appointment. It was further held that, in fact, the aforesaid appointments were made in view of the exigency when the regular candidates became unavailable and the said appointments were not against the quota of 50% earmarked for the promotees, but the petitioner was promoted as against the quota of direct recruits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the order of appointment reads as appointment on purely temporary and ad hoc basis, in fact, normal procedure that is required to be followed for regular promotion has been followed and therefore, the said ad hoc appointment shall be treated as regular appointment and if that be so, the petitioner cannot be reverted so as to enable the authorities to conduct disciplinary proceedings without following due principles of natural justice and the regular procedure required to be followed for effecting reversion. 5. The counter of the respondents before the tribunal shows that the petitioner, though in-service candidate, was promoted on ad hoc basis against vacancies meant for direct recruits. The respondents state that the process of filling up of vacant posts through direct recruitment takes about two years and therefore, to meet the exigencies, temporary promotions were given to the departmental candidates against the quota of direct recruits. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appointment of the petitioner to the promotional post is required to be treated as regular promotion and as per the said office memorandum dated 24.12.1986, the Government is empowered to revert the petitioner within one year of the said ad hoc promotion and his appointment on ad hoc basis to the promotional post was only for a period of seven months. Therefore, the reversion order cannot be held to be illegal and unsustainable. We are of the opinion that the tribunal below rightly considered the various contentions of the petitioner herein and rejected the same. We do not find any error committed by the tribunal below in dismissing the aforesaid OA. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 20, 2009 DSK