D.L.Mehta, J. - (1.) The petitioner joined the services of the Corporation on 19th October, 1960 as L.D.C. in Statistics Department. There- after, he was selected for the post of computer in open competition on 17th March, 1973. There-after, he was further promoted on the post of Asstt. Statistician on 30.1.1978. He was getting one promotion from another promotion on ad-hoc basis. Again vide (Annexure-3) the petitioner was promoted/posted vide order dated 27th July,1979, to look-after the work of A.G.M. (Statistics). There is a further reference that Shri Dhabai, will officiate on the post till the regular candidates selected by the DPC is not made available. Shri Dhabai, was also directed to take the charge of Chief Mont. Supdt. It will not be out of place here to mention that there is an endorsement on (Ann-3) by which the Additional General Manager (Administration) R.S.R.T.C. Jaipur, was informed that the post of Statistician held by Shri Dhabai, may be upgraded in the cadre of AGM. Respondents notified the post in the year 1980 and it was shown that there are 4 posts of Asstt.General Manager (St.). There were two more persons and the petitioner was the third person who was holding the post of Asstt. Manager(St.) on 15.12.1980, the date of the notification. It will not be out of place here to mention that the respondents vide office order dated 30.1.1991, decided to revert the petitioner to his original post of Statistician, on the ground that there is no sanctioned post.
(2.) Mr. Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for the non- petitioners has invited my attention to the order (Ann-1) and submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on ad-hoc, basis and he was appointed only for 6 months or till the slelected candidates selected by the D.P.C. are not available. It is not in dispute that the petitioner held the post under order (Annexure-1) dated 2.12.1979, may be on ad-hoc basis. It will not be out of place here to mention that there is an order dated 12.2.1988, by which the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Statistician vide order (Annexure-R2). Mr. Lodha, has also referred before me the statement showing the post of Statistical Assistant in head office and number of post approved by the Corporation vide (Annexure-R3), and submitted that there is no one post of A.G.M. (Statistician). However, without sanction the Corporation, though more than one person continued for more than 12 years. This statement is not consistent with the notification (Annexure-R4), by which the posts were notified. In the notification, the sanctioned strength were shown as four. Mr. Lodha, submits that the 3 posts were abolished however, there is no order of abolition. This fact of in-consistency is also available from (Ann-R3) and the note 4 and 5. In this note there is a reference that Shri T.C.Jain, who is mostly working in traffic section and he was posted as A.G.M. (St.) and similarly, there is also a reference about Shri O.P.Dhabai. If there is no post then the question of referring Shri T.C. Jain, could not have been arisen though he was on the route of -the statistical cell and he was working in the traffic cell. Mr. Lodha, submits that the postilion is very clear from (Annexure-R4) that Shri T.C.Jain was confirmed on 28.3.1987, as A.G.M. (St.). Mr. Lodha, also invited my attention to resolution (Annexure-R7) dated 30.1.1987, is an excess main power and Mr. O.P.Dhabai, who is working on ad- hoc basis since 1979, may be reverted to his original post. It will not be out of place here to mention that it may no be a case of reversion. As from the perusal of (Annexure-3), the order dated 27.7.1979, it is,clear that the post of Statistician has been up-graded and has been merged in the post of A.G.M. (St.). This fact has also been evident from other documents submitted by the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order (Annexure-5) dated 30.1.1961, by which he has been reverted to his original post.
(3.) The contention of learned counsel for both the parties about the interpretation of word 'Confirmation' is different. Mr. Maloo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after completion of one year, petitioner should be deemed to have been confirmed under regulation 121. The regulation 121, directs that a probationer shall be confirmed on completion of his period of probation if the appointing authority, is satisfied that his integrity is un-questionable and he is fit for promotion. Mr. Lodha, submits that it is not a case of confirmation at all though the word 'Confirmation' has been used under the order of 1988. A person who is holding the post on ad-hoc basis cannot be confirmed under the Regulation 120 or 121. A person who is holding the post on probation can only be confirmed and this right of confirmation is not available to the person who is working on ad-hoc basis. I agree with the view taken by Mr. Lodha, that it is a case of regularisation of the service of the petitioner on the post on which he was working in the year 1978 and the word 'Confirmation' may be read as regularisation of service. It is immaterial as far as the merit of this case is concerned, to hold that whether the petitioner is a confirmed employee or he was regular employee on the post of Statistician. Most of the officers of the State, feel starvation if their powers are reduced and they are not allowed to perform their this duties in the proper functioning of the corporate body, It is a case in which we can say that the Corporation has not acted fairly. The Corporation cannot be allowed to continue a person for 12 years on ad-hoc basis. Ad-hoc basis is a temporary arrangement or stop gap arrangement so that the vacancy can be filled by regular mode of recruitment, may be by promotion or by direct recruitment. A person who holds the post for 12 years can also claim a right to be retained on the post only this ground that he has continued worked faithfully and sincerely and to the best of his ability without complaint. It is a case in which the action should be taken against the officers of the corporation who are handling with the affairs of the Corporation. The system of keeping on ad-hoc basis needs a check and ordinarily, a person cannot be continued to hold the post of ad-hoc basis for more than one year. Under the Rules, the vacancies will have to be determined and the recruitment's will have to be made according to the rules. Continuation on the post of A.G.M. (Statistician) for 12 years without any complaint creates a fundamental right in the petitioner to continue to hold this post and to claim as of right. To argue that there is no post again reflects the in-action of the Corporation. If there was no post why the person was allowed to continue for 12 years. If it is assumed that the posts have been abolished. in the year 1991, then the petitioner has a right to be absorbed on the equivalent post because he is having a fundamental right of regularisation on the post which he is holding since last 12 years. The Corporation cannot shirk the responsibility. This may be true in theory but in practice there is a feeling amongst most of the officers of all the wings that they are the masters of the subjects and not the citizens of the society. This feeling causes deterioration in the administration and it also violates the law. The State Government and the Corporation should see why the Corporate body allowed a person to continue on the post upto 12 years, and if there was no vacancy why the system of over staff should be introduced in the Corporate bodies. I hope, the Secretary, will look into the matter and he will take necessary action against those who are responsible for the over staffing and particularly, against those officers who were imposed on the Corporation by way of deputation. Apart from that the Corporation should also look into the matter and also fix-up the liability. This argument of Mr. Lodha, cannot be accepted and the resolution (Ann-R/7) also indicates that there is a over staffing in the Railways and due to over-staffing the Railways, are suffering. In the instant case, from the perusal of (Ann-4), it seems that there were 4 posts. In the resolution of the Corporation shows that the posts were to be filled by way of promotion but now the Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the posts have been abolished. Merely to say will not suffice when the posts were abolished is not known and when the posts were increased is also not known. This itself goes to show that there is some mistake and the employee cannot be allowed to suffer.;