N S JOSHI Vs. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
LAWS(GJH)-2013-6-3
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on June 14,2013

N S Joshi Appellant
VERSUS
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)ALL these petitions filed by ad-hoc employees serving in subordinate Courts of different districts, raise common challenge to the centralized selection process undertaken by the High Court on its administrative side for appointment on different non-judicial posts in subordinate Courts under its control. They have prayed to treat them as regularly selected candidates and not to replace them by the candidates selected by centralized selection process undertaken by the High Court. All these petitions are, therefore, heard and decided together.
(2.)SPECIAL Civil Application No.5931 of 2012 is filed by the employees presently serving as Assistants (Junior Clerks) on ad-hoc basis. It is their case that they had applied for the posts of Peon and Assistant (Junior Clerk) as per the advertisement dated 7.7.2003. However, recruitment process for the posts of Assistant (Junior Clerk) was kept in abeyance and they were called for interview for the posts of Peons (Class-IV) and all of them were selected and appointed as Peons. They joined the service as Peons but subsequently, with the permission of the High Court, they were appointed as Assistants (Junior Clerks) in the pay scale of Rs.3050- 4590 and they have been discharging their duties as Assistants (Junior Clerks). They have been continuously serving on the said post for last 7 years. They have been issued Identity cards and allotted Government quarters as they are regular employees in the establishment of Valsad District Court. They have, therefore, while challenging the fresh recruitment undertaken by the High Court prayed to declare that they have been regularly appointed on clear, vacant and substantive posts of Assistant (Junior Clerk) on the establishment of Valsad District Court and they are entitled to regular pay scale for the said cadre from the date of their initial appointments. They have sought direction not to replace them by giving appointment to any other candidates selected in the fresh recruitment undertaken by the High Court.
2.1. Special Civil Application No.4205 of 2012 is filed by the employees serving as Assistants/Junior Clerks as ad-hoc on the establishment of Porbandar District Court. It is their case that their names were called from the District Employment Exchange and then appointed as Assistants/Junior Clerks in the month of November 2006. That though they have been termed as ad-hoc employees, but their appointments have been made on substantive, vacant, clear and sanctioned posts of permanent nature in the regular pay scale and by following due procedure of selection. They have, therefore, while challenging the fresh recruitment undertaken by the High Court prayed to declare that they have been regularly appointed in accordance with law on clear vacant posts of Assistant/Junior Clerk on the establishment of Porbandar District Court and they are entitled to regular pay scale.
2.2. Special Civil Application No.8443 of 2012 is filed by the employees serving as Assistants (Junior Clerks)on the establishment of Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Ahmedabad, except petitioner Nos.37 and 38 who were appointed as Stenographers. It is their case that though they have been termed as ad-hoc/ temporary employees, however their appointments were under the Recruitment Rules of 1957 on the basis of due selection process and against regular, vacant and sanctioned posts. They have, therefore, while challenging the fresh recruitment initiated by the High Court prayed to treat them as regular employees for their respective posts with effect from the date of their initial appointments and to place them in the regular pay scale.
2.3. Special Civil Application No.16314 of 2012 is filed by the employees serving on the post of drivers in the establishment of sub-ordinate courts in Patan District. 2.4. Special Civil Application No.8945 of 2012 is filed by the employees serving in different Courts in the district of Surendranagar on the posts of Stenographer and Assistant (Junior 2.5. Special Civil Application No.9065 of 2012 is filed by the employees serving as Assistants (Junior Clerks) on the establishment of District Court, Surat. 2.6. Special Civil Application No.9066 of 2012 is filed by the employees serving on the post of Assistants (Junior Clerks) in the Courts in Kheda District. 2.7. Special Civil Application No.9067 of 2012 is filed by the employees serving as Assistants (Junior Clerks) in the courts in District Bharuch.
2.8. Special Civil Application No.11581 of 2012 is filed by the employees serving as Class-IV employees in the courts in District Porbandar. It is the case of the petitioners of these petitions that their appointments were made after due selection process as per the Recruitment Rules of 1957 and therefore, though they are termed as ad-hoc employees, they are to be treated as regular employees as their appointments were on clear, vacant and sanctioned posts. They have, therefore, while challenging the fresh recruitment undertaken by the High Court prayed to treat them as regularly appointed employees to their respective posts with effect from their initial date of appointments and to place them in the regular pay scale.
2.9. Special Civil Application No.15181 of 2012 is filed by the employees serving as ad-hoc Sweepers/ Hamals in the courts of District Junagadh. It is their case that their appointments came to be extended from time to time. Clear vacancies in the cadre of Class-IV are available. The concerned authorities issued advertisement, pursuant to which, they had applied but no further proceedings were taken and they have been just continued as ad- hoc and temporary employees. It is their further case that nearly 40 vacancies for the posts of Peon in the District Court, Junagadh are available and though for such posts, interview calls were issued to several persons, they were not called for interview and no preference was given to them. Petitioner No.1 of this petition was appointed on 21.1.1990, petitioner No.2 was appointed in 1997, petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 5 were appointed in 2002, petitioner Nos.6,7 and 8 were appointed in 2005, petitioner No.9 was appointed in 2007, petitioner No.10 was appointed in 2003, petitioner No.11 was appointed in 1999, petitioner No.12 was appointed in 2003, petitioner Nos.13 and 14 were appointed in 2004, petitioner No.15 was appointed in 2005, petitioner No.16 was appointed in 2007 and petitioner No.17 was appointed in 2004. They have, while challenging the fresh recruitment undertaken by the High Court, prayed to absorb them as regularly appointed employees to their respective posts.

I have heard learned advocates for the parties.

(3.)LEARNED advocate Mr. K.B.Pujara appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos 5931 of 2012 and 4205 of 2012 has made following submissions:-
(1) Recruitment on non-judicial posts in subordinate courts are governed by the Rules made vide Government of Bombay Resolution dated 26.12.1957, under which only the Advisory Committee at district level is empowered to make recruitments for such posts. High Court has, therefore, no power to undertake Centralized Recruitment Process unless by amendment in the Rules of 1957 or by statutory rules, such powers are specially conferred upon it. (2) The recruitment process undertaken by the High Court, since de hors the Rules of 1957, the petitioners cannot be replaced by candidates selected in such illegal and unauthorized process. (3) The petitioners were appointed after following due selection process and therefore, even if the petitioners are termed as ad-hoc or stop-gap employees, they are required to be treated as regular employees for all purposes and are entitled to be placed in the regular pay scale. (4) Under the terms of appointment of the petitioners, the petitioners since completed more than one year of service, as per the condition of appointment order, have acquired status of permanent employees. (5) The petitioners have even otherwise completed long period of service and since their appointments were against the sanctioned posts, they are entitled to all benefits of regular employees.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.