- (1.) Prior to 2.11.1982 the post of Homoeopathic Physician in the State of Punjab was within the purview of the Punjab Public Service Commission. From the said date, the post was taken out of the purview of the Punjab Public Service Commission. Before 2.11.1982, petitioner Nos. 1, 3 & 4 were appointed as Homoeopathic Physicians purely on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till the appointment of suitable candidates through the Punjab Public Service Commission, whichever was earlier. These ad hoc appointments had been made by the Departmental Selection Committee, after names were sponsored by various Employment Exchanges, purely as stop-gap arrangements to await the appointment of suitable candidates through Punjab Public Service Commission. These ad hoc appointments had been extended from time to time.
(2.) In response to an advertisement issued in January, 1982 for the posts of Homoeopathic Physicians, petitioner No. 1 had applied for the same and was recommended by the Public Service Commission vide its letter dated 10.9.1982 and was given appointment on regular basis w.e.f. 2.11.1982. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were selected by the Departmental Selection Committee on 11.7.1983 after the post of Homoeopathic Physician had been taken out of the purview of the Punjab Public Service Commission and were given regular appointment on the basis of fresh selection w.e.f. 11.7.1983. Petitioner No. 2 was selected and given regular appointment w.e.f. 17.7.1984. For determining the seniority, the service rendered by petitioner Nos. 1, 3 & 4 on ad hoc basis has not been taken into account and their services for the purpose of seniority has been reckoned only from the date of their regular appointment. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were posted for some period at District Headquarters where they were bestowed with the powers of Drawing and Disbursing Officers. In the present petition, the grievance of petitioner Nos. 1, 3 & 4 is that the seniority list has been wrongly framed by ignoring their ad hoc service. If such ad hoc service is taken into account, they would become senior to many persons and such promotions to the next higher rank of junior persons would be liable to be quashed. The grievance made by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is that for the period they had discharged the duties of Drawing & Disbursing Officers, they were entitled to higher pay scale having discharged the duties of higher responsibility.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis, the same process had been gone into which was required to be gone into at the time of regular appointment and they having been regularly appointed later on were entitled to count the period of ad hoc service towards seniority. Primary reliance by the petitioners was placed on two judgments of the Apex Court in G. P. Doval v. Chief Secretary, Government of UP., 1984 2 SLR 555 and The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra, 1990 AIR(SC) 1607.;