Om Prakash - (1.) PETITIONER claims that he belongs to backward class. It is averred by him that he was selected by the U. P. Public Service Commission as Drawing Inspector and was then appointed on 3rd October, 1984. He passed Diploma in Mechanical Engineering in July, 1982. His grievance is that whereas his juniors namely ; Sarvsri K. K. Gupta, M. N. Banda and P. K. Lalwani were given ad hoc promotion on 9-11 1982 as Principal/Head, Government Secondary Technical School, he was denied promotion, though he obtained Diploma in Mechanical Engineering in July, 1982 which is the requisite qualification for the post of Principal, before 9-11-1982 when his aforesaid junior colleagues were given ad hoc promotion. It is, therefore, prayed by him that he too be promoted as ad hoc Principal/Head, Government Secondary School.
(2.) THE names of the aforesaid three persons had been sent in the year 1982 and the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) recommended to the Secretary to appoint them on 26-2-1982. As the petitioner was not qualified on that date his name was not recommended by the D.P.C. for ad hoc promotion. THE recommendations made by the D.P.C. were accepted and then the orders for ad hoc promotion of the three aforesaid persons had been issued on 9-11-1982. From this factual position, it is manifest that the petitioner was not qualified for the post of Principal when process of ad hoc promotion was set in motion. THE D.P.C, as it is manifest from the above facts had met before 26-2-1982 when it recommended the three names to the Secretary for ad hoc promotion. No doubt, the petitioner acquired minimum qualification for the post of Principal in July, 1982 when he passed Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. But the fact remains that process of promotion commenced much before that date. THE question is whether the name of the petitioner could be considered along with the aforesaid three persons whose names were considered by the D.P.C. before 26-2-1982 on which date the D.P.C. made recommendations to the Secretary to appoint them as Principal. THE petitioner having not acquired qualification when the D.P.C. considered the names for promotion, and when it recommended the three names to the Secretary, plea of discrimination cannot be raised. THE petitioner was not similarly situated when the D.P.C. met to consider the question of promotion inasmuch as he did not then possess minimum requisite qualification for the post of Principal. It is a trite law that once the process of selection started, it cannot be stopped to include those who acquired requisite qualification later. One must possess the qualification at the time of commencement of the process. THE process cannot be reversed or cannot be started afresh to consider the names of those who acquired qulification at a subsequent stage. If it is permitted then the selection process will never come to an end. THErefore, the submission of the petitioner that he was discriminated against, falls to the ground. It is averred in para 6 of the writ petition that in July/August, 1986, the Director Technical Education, Kanpur recommended three names, the petitioner's name being at the top for ad hoc appointment on the post of principal, but no appointment was made and again a list of seven persons including the petitioner was sent by the Director to the Secretary in the year 1987, but no promotion was made. It is, therefore, contended that the respondents be directed to hold the D.P.C. for selecting ad hoc Principal. Whereas a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents nos. 1, 2, and 3, Sri Vinod Misra learned counsel for the Commission, respondent no. 4 frankly stated that he had to say nothing in the matter and, therefore, no counter affidavit was filed by him. In para 8 of the counter affidavit, it is averred that earlier policy of giving ad hoc promotion was discontinued in view of the GO, dated 29-3-1986, Annexure 1 to the writ petition and, therefore, no selection was made. The G.O. states that no ad hoc appointment be made as fir as possible and it may be resorted to only in unavoidable circumstances. The G.O, deprecates ad hoc direct appointment. It states that the ad hoc appointment can be made only in unavoidable circumstances by promoting a person from the lower grade, provided he possesses the same qualifications which are prescribed by the Commission for regular selection and that such appoiniment should terminate immediately after a regulary selected candidate by the Commission becomes available. The question for consideration is whether in the teeth of the G.O., Annexure 1, the respondents were right in not having resorted to the ad hoc promotion in the year 1986 and on wards. It is not disputed that the post of Principal/Head Government Secondary Technical School is within the purview of the Commission. In para 12 of the counter affidavit, it is averred that the Commission has already advertised the post of Principal on the request of the Department and that the recommendations of the Commission are awaited. The ad hoc appointment is not a virtue but is a back door entry ; such a provision is a big lever and confers unbridled power on the authorities to exercise arbitrariness or to show favour to the choicest ones on account of relationship or extraneous considerations. It is only to plug this malady that the Government issued the G.O. dated 29th March, 1986 interdicting the ad hoc appointments, unless it becomes absolutely necessary to keep up the efficiency and to ensure smooth working in Government Departments. When the moral standards are degenerating and conferment of selection power on senior authorities is no guarantee of fairness, the spirit of the G. O. Annexure 1 has to be appreciated and the ad hoc selection deserves to be deprecated. It is a sad state of affairs that the instrumentalities empowered to make selections take considerable time to complete the process of selection and, therefore, due to inordinate delay on the part of selection authority, very often it becomes necessary to make ad hoc appointment. If the Departments remain undermanned for a long time, then surely the Government functioning will suffer adversely. Whereas prohibition of ad hoc selection deserves appreciation, the selection process by the authorities either constitutional or otherwise, should be made a timebound programme and a serious notice should be taken of delayed selection. Unless quick selection is devised, ad hoc appointment cannot be ruled out. Undue stress on the prohibition of ad hoc selection and no attention on expediting selection process will never achieve the goal. It is only when expeditious selection by a competent authority and the abolition or minimisation of ad hoc selection which are the two sides of the same coin are given equal consideration, the goal can be achieved. In a socio-democratic State, the selection process should be so devised as to inspire more and more confidence among the citizens. Onerous work of selection should not only be entrusted to a body of higher level but at the same time, steps should be taken to ensure expeditious selection so that the ad hoc selection may be dispensed with.
(3.) THERE is nothing to show that the petitioner has got a legal right for ad hoc selection and no selection having been made in or after 1986, no mandamus as prayed by the petitioner, can be issued to constitute the D.P.C. to recommend the name of the petitioner for ad hoc selection. The petitioner relying on the G.O. dated 15-1-1986, Annexure 2 to the supplementary affidavit urged that he is entitled to the benefit of reservation when ad hoc promotions are made and that if his name were considered for ad hoc promotion in the year 1982 or immediately thereafter then his services would have been regularised in view of the G.O. dated 3-1-1-1988, Annexure 4 to the supplementary affidavit. The petitioner would have been considered only if the respondents had resorted to ad hoc appointment and no ad hoc appointment having been made after the year 1982, when the petitioner was not even eligible, the respondents cannot he directed to promote the petitioner on ad hoc basis and to regularise his services on the basis of the G.O. dated 3rd November, 1988, Annexure 4 to the supplementary affidavit. Though it is averred in the counter affidavit that requisition was sent to the commission and advertisement had been made thereby pursuant to that for making selection on the post of Principal, but it is not known as to when requisition was sent. In any case, the requisition must have gone to the commission before 13th October, 1988 when the counter affidavit was sworn. There was no suggestion in course of arguments from the side of the respondents that the commission has sent its recommendations. From this it can be inferred that enough time has passed from the date of requisition and the respondent no. 4 has not yet made selections. This being so, the respondents nos. 1 to 3 may consider the desirability of making ad hoc promotion if the depleted strength and efficiency in Government work warrant immediate ad hoc appointment on the post of the Principal/Head, Government Secondary Technical School and if the petitioner fulfils all the requisite conditions for the ad hoc promotion then his name may be considered giving him the benefit of reservation in ad hoc appointment as stated in the G.O. dated 15th January, 1986, Annexure 2 to the supplementary affidavit.;