Case: SHYAM SUNDER OBEROI &amp; ORS Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI &amp; ORS

regularized from the dates of their initial appointment. It is another matter that the appellants did not undergo a written test but then they had worked for nearly seven years as LDCs when they were made to undergo the typing test. Again, pursuant to the judicial orders which were passed on 12th November, 1992 and 6th April, 1994, they underwent tests, but in a sense a modified test of where the written examination was dispensed with and they were made to give the typing-cumshorthand test in which they qualified. As already noticed, some of them had got a second chance pursuant to the order dated 6th April, 1994 of the Division Bench. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the present appellants passed the qualifying test they were expected to pass in order to be regularized. 18. While this Court concurs with the decision of the learned Single Judge that the dates of the regularization of the present appellants in the post from the date of their initial appointment on ad hoc basis in terms of the order dated 17th November, 2000 issued by the respondent no. 1 should be left undisturbed, this Court disagrees with the learned Single Judge that the seniority of the appellants would not count from those very dates of their regularization. 19. To that extent, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The net result is that the appellants will count their seniority from the dates of their respective regularization of the posts as LDCs. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with their assistance. 14. The facts are not in dispute and culled out that the present group of appellants are the members of the ministerial cadre(LDC) appointed on substantive basis after going through the process of selection prescribed for holding regular selection after they have gone through the written test followed with the typing test in the year 1987. At the given point of time, the respondents were appointed on ad-hoc basis for a fixed term during the period 1983- 1989 and after they were granted exemption from appearing in the written test by the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1820 of 1990 preferred at their instance, all of them qualified the typing test in the first or second attempt in the year 1992 or thereafter and were regularized by the District and Session Judge by an order dated 17th November, 2000 from the date of their initial appointment. So far as the question of seniority is concerned, it was specifically mentioned that it shall be separately determined in accordance with rules but as there were no rules/guidelines at that time for determining seniority of the employees of the ministerial cadre in the subordinate service of Delhi, a presumption was drawn as they were regularized from the date of appointment that entails consequential seniority but that came to be clarified by the learned Single Judge that they will not be entitled to claim seniority over such of the employees who were appointed on substantive basis unlike the present appellants but that came to be set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 6 th December, 2018 primarily relying on the interim order passed by the High Court in the earlier proceedings dated 20th August 1992 which was in reference to panel of 180 candidates who qualified the typing test held pursuant to Orders passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 12th November, 1992 and 6th April, 1994 respectively. 15. Indisputedly, the Order dated 20th August, 1992 in no manner was related to determination of seniority qua the present appellants who were recruited through open selection after qualifying the written test followed by typing test in the year 1987. 16. In the facts and circumstances, a question certainly arises if the employees who were appointed in the first instance on ad-hoc basis for a fixed term which has been extended from time to time, and have qualified the typing test at a later point of time, which is one of the pre-qualification for regular/substantive appointment, can claim regularization from initial appointment but since the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment have not interfered with the order passed by the District and Session Judge dated 17th November, 2000 in granting the benefit of regularization from the date of initial appointment, after such a long passage of time, it would not have been advisable for this Court to interfere so far as such appointees seeking regularization from the date of initial appointment although acquire the pre-requisite qualification at the later stage, but at the given point of time, the interim order dated 20th August, 1992 of the High Court in the earlier proceedings has been misread by the Division Bench of the High Court while passing the impugned judgment dated 6th December 2018. 17. We consider it appropriate to observe that the employees who were appointed on ad-hoc basis and qualified typing test at the later stage, in absence of the scheme of rules in determining seniority, at least could not have a right to march over such of the employees who were appointed on substantive basis after going through the process of selection for holding regular selection and their right of seniority in no manner be relegated qua such of the ad-hoc employees who qualified typing test at a later stage and regularized subsequently from the date of initial appointment like in the instant case by an Order dated 17th November, 2000. 18. In our considered view, the Division Bench has committed a manifest error under the impugned judgment in granting them the benefit of seniority who were appointed on ad-hoc basis as LDCs from the date of their regularization which was neither granted by the District and Session Judge by its Order dated 17th November, 2000 nor they were entitled for under the law.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]15. Indisputedly, the Order dated 20th August, 1992 in no manner was related to determination of seniority qua the present appellants who were recruited through open selection after qualifying the written test followed by typing test in the year 1987.16. In the facts and circumstances, a question certainly arises if the employees who were appointed in the first instance on ad-hoc basis for a fixed term which has been extended from time to time, and have qualified the typing test at a later point of time, which is one of the pre-qualification for regular/substantive appointment, can claim regularization from initial appointment but since the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment have not interfered with the order passed by the District and Session Judge dated 17th November, 2000 in granting the benefit of regularization from the date of initial appointment, after such a long passage of time, it would not have been advisable for this Court to interfere so far as such appointees seeking regularization from the date of initial appointment although acquire the pre-requisite qualification at the later stage, but at the given point of time, the interim order dated 20th August, 1992 of the High Court in the earlier proceedings has been misread by the Division Bench of the High Court while passing the impugned judgment dated 6th December 2018.17. We consider it appropriate to observe that the employees who were appointed on ad-hoc basis and qualified typing test at the later stage, in absence of the scheme of rules in determining seniority, at least could not have a right to march over such of the employees who were appointed on substantive basis after going through the process of selection for holding regular selection and their right of seniority in no manner be relegated qua such of the ad-hoc employees who qualified typing test at a later stage and regularized subsequently from the date of initial appointment like in the instant case by an Order dated 17th November, 2000.18. In our considered view, the Division Bench has committed a manifest error under the impugned judgment in granting them the benefit of seniority who were appointed on ad-hoc basis as LDCs from the date of their regularization which was neither granted by the District and Session Judge by its Order dated 17th November, 2000 nor they were entitled for under the law.