DB says adhoc period not to be counted as 'regular judicial service'

news details

DB says adhoc period not to be counted as 'regular judicial service'

LPA of Judicial Officers dismissed

3/4/2015 11:44:33 PM

Jammu, Mar 4 (JNF): A Division Bench (DB) of State High Court comprising Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat today decided a controversy whether Adhoc period of judicial officers can be counted in regular judicial services, dismissed the Latter's Patent Appeal filed by the Judicial Officers with the observations that Adhoc period not to be counted in regular judicial services.Division Bench observed that It is not in dispute that the appellants while serving as adhoc Munsifs, applied for substantive appointment in terms of the notification dated 14/5/1998 issued by the J&K Public Service Commission and they also participated in the competitive examination in terms of the Recruitment Rules. The merit list was prepared by the Public Service Commission based on the marks secured by all the candidates (written test as well as viva-voce) and selected the persons, including the appellants, based on the ranks secured by them in the said selection. They were also appointed substantively in the year 2000 based on the said select list and they have also joined in the substantive post, attended training, and thereafter the appellants have chosen to claim seniority by counting adhoc service along with regular service rendered after substantive appointment.
The said claim was rejected by the High Court vide order No.11032-36195 dated 15/12/2000. Court observed that the said conduct of the appellants viz. submitting application to Public Service Commission, accepting the merit list and joining in the substantive posts, clearly demonstrate that the appellants' acquiescence for selection to the substantive appointment and thereafter the appellants are turning around and claiming seniority to count their earlier temporary service along with regular service and the same is impermissible. "It is well settled principle of law that a candidate having participated in the selection process is estopped from raising the plea contrary to the selection made, court said. Division Bench also observed that from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred decisions, it is evident that counsel for the respondents are justified in raising the plea of estoppel against the appellants from claiming to count ad hoc service along with regular service for the purpose of fixing seniority merely because the appellants were also selected by the Public Service Commission during the regular selection. With these observations Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of Writ Court.The appellants and private respondents were directly recruited as Munssifs after being selected on the basis of selection process undertaken by J&K Public Service Commission in the year 2000, in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967. Before they were substantively appointed the appellants were appointed as Munssifs on adhoc basis on the basis of the selection made by the High Court by order dated 22/5/1996 and 1/10/1996 respectively as some of the posts of Munsifs in the State lower judiciary were lying vacant. Prior to their appointment on ad hoc basis, the High Court issued an advertisement inviting advertisement for filling up the post of Munsif on ad hoc basis. The adhoc service continued until the posts were advertised by the J&K Public Service Commission and selection and appointments were completed.

Share This News with Your Friends on Social Network

Comment on this Story

Like our Facebook Page