Ad Hoc Service Counts For Seniority When Properly Regularized; Gauhati HC
Gauhati High Court: A Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita dismissed a writ appeal challenging the seniority claim of a school principal appointed initially on an ad hoc basis. The Court ruled that when ad hoc appointments are regularized following due selection processes, seniority must be counted from the initial appointment date. The Court rejected the appellant's contention that concurrent educational qualifications obtained without prior approval invalidated the respondent's eligibility, holding that procedural violations in obtaining degrees do not inherently invalidate qualifications recognized by universities.
Background
Naren Chandra Deka was appointed as Principal of Paschim Barigog Dhirudatta Higher Secondary School. Kalyan Das, who was senior to Deka in service, contested this appointment, citing procedural injustice regarding seniority. Das argued that his appointment, although initially ad hoc, followed the proper selection process, making him eligible for the senior position over Deka, who was appointed in a substantive role at a later date. Deka defended his position by alleging that Das's concurrent educational qualifications (B.Ed. and M.A.) were obtained without necessary approvals, a factor he claimed rendered Das's qualifications invalid under Assam Civil Services rules.
Arguments
Deka argued that seniority should be determined based on substantive appointments, which would make Deka the senior. Deka had been appointed in a permanent role on 30.10.1998, while Das's initial appointment, dated 16.09.1998, was on an ad hoc basis, regularized only in 2010. Deka further contended that Das's seniority claim was invalid since Das had obtained his M.A. and B.Ed. degrees concurrently from different universities without required permission, which Deka argued constituted a misconduct under Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. On this basis, Deka claimed Das's academic credentials were illegitimate, disqualifying him from a higher post.
Das rebutted that his seniority should be acknowledged based on the date of his initial ad hoc appointment, which was formalized following the District Level Selection Board's recommendation. Citing Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, Das emphasized that the ad hoc appointment made through a formal selection process granted him uninterrupted seniority from the date of his initial appointment. Das's counsel also argued that Deka's objections regarding Das's degrees were irrelevant, since both degrees were from recognized universities.
Court's Reasoning:
On the question of seniority, the court observed that Das's ad hoc appointment was based on the selection process and was regularized thereafter, supporting his claim to continuous seniority. The court examined Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers Assn., in which the Supreme Court upheld seniority for ad hoc employees appointed through formal selection and retained without interruption. In this case, Das's initial selection by the District Level Selection Board and his uninterrupted service justified the court's decision to recognize his seniority from his initial appointment date.
Addressing Deka's arguments regarding Das's concurrent degrees, the court referred to the Gauhati High Court's own ruling in Smti Mousumi Saharia v. Smti Rekha Kalita & Ors., which held that while obtaining simultaneous degrees without official permission may constitute procedural irregularities, it does not invalidate an otherwise recognized qualification. Consequently, the court found no merit in Deka's argument that Das's M.A. and B.Ed. degrees should be disqualified, reiterating that Das's degrees, recognized by competent educational bodies, sufficed for his qualification to the post. The court ultimately concluded that Deka's appointment as Principal based on a misinterpretation of seniority lacked legal foundation, and Das's seniority, regularized under the law, superseded Deka's claim.
Further, referencing Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Vinita Mehta and Assam State Electricity Board v. Surya Kanta Roy, the court noted that review in intra-court appeals under Article 226 are confined to situations of patent error, arbitrariness, or disregard of established principles by the Single Judge. As the court observed, “if two reasonable and logical views are possible, the view adopted by the Single Judge should normally be allowed to prevail.” Upholding the Single Judge's decision, the court rejected Deka's appeal, stating that it did not demonstrate any perverse or arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion.
Date: 22.10.2024
Case Citation: 2024:GAU-AS:10332-DB
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. I.H. Saikia
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. J. Roy (Senior Advocate), Mr. D. Das, and Ms. H. Teronpi