MANOHAR PRASAD Vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The eleven petitioners have filed this writ application for determination of their seniority. They claim seniority over respondent Nos. 4 to 42 and 64. The petitioners were appointed as Assistants Grade III in the office of the Food Corporation of India at different places under the Bihar Zone. Undisputedly the appointment of the petitioners was made, by the orders dated 30th April and 14th May, 1973, passed by the Regional Manager of Bihar Region, respondent No. 3, on purely temporary and ad hoc basis for a period of three months only for the purpose of Rabi procurement work. The petitioners, however, were allowed to continue even after the expiry of the period of three months and later on were interviewed for absorption in the regular cadre on the 14th and 16th of February, 1974. On the recommendation of the Selection Board their services were regularised and they were designated as Assistant Grade III in the ministerial cadre which included Typists also. Subsequently by office orders dated 2.12.1974 (Annexures '6' series) the petitioners, having completed one year's satisfactory service, were confirmed. These orders also specified the respective dates of confirmation of the petitioners but did not take into account the dates of their initial appointments on ad hoc basis. However, later on, in the provisional gradation list issued on 17.10.75 (Annexure '8') the petitioners were shown as seniors to respondents 4 to 8.

(2.) On the above pleadings and arguments it has to be seen as to whether the petitioners can rely upon any of the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The relevant regulations are Nos. 6, 7, 9, 15 and 16. Regulation No. 6 prescribes the appointing authority competent to make appointments to the type of posts indicated in column 2 of the table set out in Appendix III. Regulation No. 7 deals with various modes of appointment. It also contemplates appointment on ad hoc basis. Regulation 9 deals with procedure for direct recruitment. Regulation No. 15 which is the most important regulation reads as follows:

(3.) The other leg of the argument of Mr. Mukherji was that respondent No. 3, being the appointing authority under regulation 6, was the sale authority to exercise his discretion under clause (5) of regulation 15 and, therefore, once he had exercised the discretion in favour of the petitioners, as already referred to earlier (vide Annexure 7), the respondent No 1 could not intervene in the matter and sit over the decision of respondent No. 3.