JUDGMENT
Khan, (J)
1. Respondent, Assistant Supdt., Stores, in
Safdarjung Hospital, was appointed Assistant Administrative
Officer (AAO) (Group D) on ad hoc basis for three months or
till regular appointment was made to the post whichever was
earlier by order dated 31.1.1997 passed by petitioner No. 2.
His term was not extended thereafter. However, in response
to his correspondence, it was recorded in an officer note
dated 22.7.1999 that since no extension was granted in his
term, he would stand reverted to his post of Assistant
Supdt. (Stores). He challenged this in OA No. 1654/99 and
petitioners contested this on the plea that once his term
was not extended he stood reverted automatically to his
substantive post of ASS. Moreover, post of AAO was to be
filled up on regular basis by selection from amongst the
feeding cadres having five years experience in that cadre.
It was also claimed that respondent was also considered by
the DPC for regular appointment at one stage but was not
found eligible as he felt short of requisite five years
service as ASS.
2. Tribunal, however, on tracing respondent’s service
graph qua his other two colleagues, M/s. Gupta & Majhi took
the view that he was unjustly dealt with and quashed office
note dated 22.7.1999 reverting him to post of ASS. It
further directed that he shall be deemed to have continued
as AAO from February 1997 and considered for regularisation
of his services on the post.
3. Petitioners feel aggrieved of this. Their case is
that respondent’s appointment as AAO was ad hoc for three
months and his appointment order dated 31.1.1997 made it
clear that it would not confer any right for regularisation
or for that matter any other benefit of seniority, etc. on
him. No extension was also granted and he stood
automatically reverted to his substantive post of ASS and
therefore, impugned Tribunal order quashing his reversion
and directing his reinstatement was misdirected. Besides
since regular appointment to the post was to be made by
selection under recruitment rules which did not provide for
regularisation of an ad hoc appointee there was no way to
regularise his services. It is, however, stated that
presently two posts of AAO were available for being filled
up in which he would be accorded due consideration.
4. It is well settled that an appointment to the post
was to be made in accordance with the mode prescribed by
the recruitment rules and any appointment made de hors such
rules was not liable to be regularised unless any such
provision was made by these. Since no such provision
admittedly existed in the recruitment rules the question of
regularising respondent’s services would not arise and
Tribunal in our view had no occasion to direct
regularisation of respondent’s services. Impugned Tribunal
order, therefore, can’t sustain and is set aside.
5. This part, respondent still enjoyed a right of
consideration for regular promotion to the post of AAO
under Rules. Now that two posts were admittedly available,
petitioners are directed to accord him due consideration
for one of the posts and to pass appropriate orders in the
matter. Respondents present service status as on today
shall be maintained till then.