- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. Petitioner alleges that he was selected through the regular selec tion process by District Selection Com mittee, Agra against regular and substan tive vacancy and was given appointment on 6-7-78 (Annexure-1 to the writ peti tion) and inadvertently the word 'ad hoc' was inserted in the appointment letter. Subsequently, he was transferred and ultimated confirmed and promoted to the post of Senior Clerk from the post of Junior Clerk in which he was initially ap pointed. His name was also reflected in the seniority list of the junior clerk. After 8 years of the promotion to the post, the petitioner was sought to be reverted on the ground that he having been appointed on ad hoc basis, he could not get the benefit of length of service till the date of his ap pointment on regular post which is made on 21-4-86. Therefore, by reason of such seniority, he is not eligible for being promoted to the post of senior clerk. This order is dated 19-4-95 (Annexure-VII to the writ petition) which has since been challenged by means of this writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Shri AN. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the ground on which the petitioner was sought to be reverted that he was not selected in ac cordance with Rule 7 (1) of U. P. Regula tion of ad hoc appointments (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter called as the 1979 Rules), cannot be ap plied in the case of the petitioner since the said rule came into force on 14-5-79 whereas the petitioner was appointed on 6- 7-78 and was not covered by reason of paragraph 4 of the said 1979 Rules. There fore, according to him, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Learned Standing Counsel Shri R. C. Yadav, on the other hand contends that the petitioner cannot claim benefit of his ad hoc appointment. He can claim his seniority only when his service was regularised and not before. Therefore, the order passed is justified. Since the petitioner's service has been regularised under the said 1979 Rules, therefore, he cannot claim exemption from the purview of the said rule. Therefore, Rule 7 (1) of 1979 Rules is very much application for the petitioner's case and the petitioner having not been selected duly, he cannot get the benefit of promotion to the post of senior clerk. I have heard Shri A. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri R. C. Yadav, learned Standing Coun sel.
(3.) THE fact remains that the petitioner was appointed on 6-7-78. THE appointment order, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, incorporate several clauses which indicates that the said appointment was a temporary appointment and not an ad hoc appointment. As rightly contended by Shri Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the conditions mentioned could not have been included in an ad hoc appointment. Since ad hoc appointee is attached to a particular office, therefore, the very condition that he may be trans ferred comewhere else indicates his ap pointment is something more than ad hoc. By an order dated 28-6-79, the petitioner was transferred from Agra to Azamgarh as is apparent from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. From the order dated 21-4-86, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, it appears that after having received the police verification report the petitioner was given temporary appointment on the con dition mentioned therein. No counter- af fidavit has been filed despite sufficient time having been given to the respondents. Learned Standing Counsel submits that despite addressing letters to the con cerned authority, even by registered post, no one had turned up. THErefore, the al legation that the petitioner was selected through due selection process is taken to be admitted. Be that as it may. The very appoint ment on ad hoc basis is in fact an appoint ment on temporary basis subject to the police verification. Since police verifica tion was made on the appointment of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the said appointment was ad hoc. Police verifica tion is required in respect of an appoint ment which is made against the substan tive vacancy and aimed it to be substantive though may be temporary. Then again it appears that the petitioner was confirmed with effect from 1-9-85 whereas the order of appointment on temporary basis is dated 21-4-86. A person appointed on temporary post on 21-4-86 cannot be confirmed from a date prior to his appoint ment. Therefore, the ad hoc appointment is in fact a temporary appointment and it was so treated by respondent by reason of inclusion of the petitioner in the seniority list as well as transfer of him from one place to another. The very confirmation with effect from 1-9-85 indicates that the respondents treated the petitioner to have been appointed on 6-7-78. By an order dated 23-7-86, a seniority list was prepared in which the petitioner's name finds place at SI. No. III where in the date of regular appointment is mentioned as 7-7-78. Shri Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this seniority list has not been cancelled. He further con tends that even if it is corrected, the same cannot be done without an opportunity to the petitioner. No material is produced to show that the said list is incorrect. There after by an order dated 31-3-87, the petitioner was promoted to post of Senior Clerk. The said order is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The petitioner's name was shown at SI. No. 104 in the said list of promotion. Clause 2 of the said order, contained in Annexure-6 to the writ peti tion, indicates that person who had been appointed on ad hoc basis prior to 21-7-78 would also be subject to the condition mentioned in para 2. Therefore, with full awareness of the petitioner's appointment on ad hoc basis, the promotion was given treating the same to be date of his entry in the service as has been reflected in the seniority list.;