Ad Hoc Appointments Can Be Made On Rotational Basis, Seniority Not A Criteria
Case: The University Of Agricultural Sciences V. Dr. Digambarappa, & others
Coram: Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice P Krishna Bhat
Case No.: WRIT APPEAL NO.100263 OF 2022
Court Observation: “In matters of ad hoc appointments, seniority cannot be the sole/soul mantra. The Board, comprising of high authorities & experts in its wisdom has prescribed the rule of rotation so that every eligible aspirant for the posts in question shall get some booster that would go a long way in his career. It is also a way to attract & retain talented teachers in the campus.”
“The concept of ad hoc appointment is not alien to Service Jurisprudence; it is a common knowledge that civil servants are appointed on incharge or independent charge basis, in the posts only as a temporary measure, under Rule 32 of KCSRs (Karnataka Civil Service Rules). In such cases, ordinarily, the seniority does not much factor.”
“Ordinarily seniority has a pivotal role, while making promotions on regular & substantive basis. However, when it comes to making ad hoc appointments as the ones at hands, ordinarily seniority takes the backseat. This is not to say that the authority in making ad hoc placement can choose whomsoever it wants; even there the requirement of fairness & reasonableness cannot be dispensed with.”
“The above Resolution is not in challenge. In fact, the writ petitioner was appointed as the Director during the period between 01.08.2018 & 01.02.2019. Therefore, the Vice-Chancellor had no option than to appoint the 3rd respondent as the Director. Had he not done this, he would have committed an actionable wrong qua the said respondent.”
“Therefore, petitioner is not justified in staking his claim to the post in question over again. An argument to the contrary would breach the Rule of Rotation promulgated by the August Body of the University. If a contention to the contrary is accepted, the senior most person shall continue in the said post beyond six months only with an artificial break every time which the law & reason shun. This aspect having not been discussed in the impugned judgment, there is an error apparent on its face.”
“Firstly, it is only an ordinary letter issued by the Under Secretary, Mr. H.N.Lakshmanagowda.The letter lacks the trappings of a Government Order. This apart, what authority the Under Secretary had, to prescribe seniority as the norm for appointments of the kind is not demonstrated.”
“Section 10 gives power to the Chancellor to do certain things at the instance of the Government; but the Government on its own can not issue any direction to the University. Universities are not the notional extensions of the government departments, nor their vassals. They are autonomous bodies and therefore their autonomy should be respected. The Secretaries of the Government Departments cannot interfere in the affairs of Universities in the absence of statutory power and the justification for its exercise, both of which are absent in the case at hands.”
“The very idea of ‘appointment by rotation’ excludes the notion of seniority. The Vice-Chancellor in issuing the impugned appointment orders has followed the extant norms. Even this aspect of the matter has escaped due attention of the learned Single Judge. Thus, there is an added error apparent on the face of the impugned judgment.”
“The contention that the post of Dean is comparatively a bit lower compared to that of Director, does not merit deeper examination, at our hands given the fact that both the posts carry same pay scale & emoluments. If the University states that posts are equal, the one who questions it has to make out a strong case to substantiate the contra. That being the position, no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the Writ petitioner by virtue of impugned orders of the University.”
Previous Posts
No Absolute Right Under RTE Act For Admission To Unaided Minority Schools: Bombay High Court
ESI Act Applicable To BCCI As Its Activities Are Commercial In Nature: Bombay High Court
Company Tribunal Not A Labour Court Or Administrative Tribunal To Focus Entirely On Removal Of Director: Supreme Court In Tata-Mistry Case Download Judgement
