- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) BY this common judgment a bunch of cases pertaining to ad-hoc, Appointment are being disposed off as issue to be decided in the Writ Petition, centers round the question whether the writ petitioner's who are appointed on ad-hoc Basis vests any right for regularization in services. It appears from the averments made in the writ petitions that all the petitioners was appointed on ad- hoc basis initially for specified period and thereafter their services have been extended from time to time. The petitioners knew that there appointment was temporarily on ad-hoc, basis and for specified period and that they are not entitled for regularization as a matter of right. Their appointment was not been made after following the procedure prescribed for appointment and was not in accordance with the recruitment rules for posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission. In some of the cases it is not in dispute that the petitioners were selected by a local selection Committee only for the purpose of ad-hoc appointments. Such selection does not vest any right of appointment. The averments by the Counsel for the petitioner to the term of the appointment of the petitioners was extended from time to time, is adequate enough to quote that they have been appointed on regular basis, cannot be considered in as much as in extension given from time to time in violation of provisions of law, can vests any person with any legal right for regular appointment. They have to qualify in regular selection with other eligible candidates. The petitioner placed reliance on following passage in case of Jackob M. Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority and Others, AIR 1990 SC 2228: "if the Rule is so interpreted it seems clear to us that employees who have been working on the establishment since long, and who possess the requisite qualifications for the job as obtaining on the date of their employment must be allowed to continue on their jobs and their services should be regularized. It is unfair and unreasonable to remove people who have been rendering service since sometime as such removal has serious consequences. The family of the employee, which has settled down, and accommodated its needs to the emoluments received by the breadwinner, will face economic ruination if the job is suddenly taken away. Besides, the precious period of early life devoted in the service of the establishment will be wholly wasted and the incumbent may be rendered age barred for securing a job elsewhere. It is indeed unfair to use him, generate hope and a feeling of security in him, and attune his family to live within his earnings and then suddenly to throw him out of job. Such behaviour would be an affront to the concept of job security and would run counter to the constitutional philosophy, particularly the concept of right to work in Art. 41 of the Constitution. Therefore, if we interpret Rule 9 (a) (i) consistently with the spirit and philosophy of the Constitution, which it is permissible to do without doing violence to the said rule, it follows that employees who are serving on the establishment for long spells and have the requisite qualifications for the job should not be thrown out but their services should be regularized as far as possible. Since workers belonging to this batch have worked on their posts for reasonably long spells they are entitled to regularization in services. "
(3.) HOWEVER, where an appointment made by the State is without competence or without following the procedure prescribed by law, the incumbent cannot claim any right. In such cases the contract of services is not enforceable in law. Any ad-hoc appointment may by the authority be regularized according to rules, provided that the incumbent has eligibility qualification of the posts. If the incumbent has continued for long, the vacancy should be fill up on permanent basis in accordance with law and the person working may also be considered in accordance with rules. The employer must fill up those posts by a permanent appointment in accordance with the Rules rather than allow such ad-hoc appointments continued for years together. It is settled law that an employee appointed under a particular scheme has no enforceable right in a Court for regularization of his appointment. No vested right is created temporary appointment.;