Keshav Narayan Gupta and Others Vs. Jila Parishad , Shivpuri ( MP ) and Another
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeals Nos. 4954 and 4955 of 1992
Petitioner: Keshav Narayan Gupta and Others
Respondent: Jila Parishad , Shivpuri ( MP ) and Another
Apeal: Civil Appeals Nos. 4954 and 4955 of 1992
Judges: SUJATA V. MANOHAR & D.P. WADHWA , JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 11, 1997
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Madhya Bharat Panchayat Rules, Samwat 2008
Rule 150 – Appointment – Regularisation – Temporary appointments of LDC for short periods with short breaks in 1985 – Continuance till after 1991 – Termination in 1992 – Resolution Dt. 22.1.87 contemplating for approval of Collector until rules are framed – If entitled to regularisation –
Madhya Bharat Panchayat Rules, Samwat 2008
Rule 150 – Appointment – Regularisation – Temporary appointments of LDC for short periods with short breaks in 1985 – Continuance till after 1991 – Termination in 1992 – Resolution Dt. 22.1.87 contemplating for approval of Collector until rules are framed – If entitled to regularisation –
Held:
No , However , appellants directed to be considered for regular appointment by waiving age bar and till then to continue on ad-hoc basis .
HELD –
The Resolution of 22-1-1987 , provides that until rules are framed for appointment or promotion , the appointments should be made by following the general procedure approved by the Collec-tor . There should be a Selection Committee in which the Presi-dent/his representative should also be included . In the present case appointments were made by the Secretary of the Panchayat concerned . It does not seem as if any applications were invited for these posts . The approval of the Collector was not obtained for any regular appointment . Initially , only temporary appoint-ments for limited periods were sanctioned by the Collector . When the Panchayat passed resolutions seeking regular appointment for these appellants , the approval of the Collector was not given to such regular appointment . Therefore , in any view of the matter it would be difficult to consider their appointments as regular . ( Para 4 )
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1 . The facts in both these appeals are similar . For the sake of convenience we are setting out the facts in CA No. 4954 of 1992. The appellant was appointed in the office of Zila Par-ishad , Shivpuri ( M.P. ) as a Lower Division Clerk temporarily and for a period of 30 days on 5-6-1985 . This temporary appointment was continued after a short break for another 30 days and it was thereafter renewed with short breaks from time to time . The ap-pellant in CA No. 4955 of 1992 was similarly appointed temporari-ly by the same Zila Parishad as a driver for short periods with breaks . The appellants in both the appeals continued in service up to 1992 .
2 . Under a Circular dated 1-10-1984 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat and Rural Development Department , 4 posts were sanctioned for District Panchayats in 29 districts except the districts of Madhya Bharat . The Zila Panchayat of Shivpuri falls in Madhya Bharat . By another Resolution dated 22-1-1987 , 2 additional posts were sanctioned for the District Panchayats . As a result , six posts became available to the Dis-trict Panchayats including the post of a Lower Division Clerk . The Resolution of 22-1-1987 also makes it clear that in the 16 districts of Madhya Bharat where the staff is working from the time when Mandal Panchayats were in existence , the staff will not exceed the six sanctioned posts . In paragraph six it is provided , inter alia , that until rules are framed for appointment and promotion of employees of District Panchayats the appointments would be made after following the general procedure approved by the Collector . In the Selection Committee the President/his representative should also be included . Even after the Resolution of 19-2-1987 the appellants continued to be ad hoc employees . Ultimately under a directive issued by the Deputy Director , Vigilance on behalf of the Director Panchayat , Social Services , M.P. dated 4-6-1991 , it was directed that all irregular appoint-ments made in the District Panchayat , District Shivpuri should be cancelled . Accordingly , by two letters dated 23-3-1992 and 30-7-1992 the appointment of the two appellants was terminated by giving them three months’ previous notice in accordance with Rule 150 of the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Rules , Samwat 2008. Orders of termination were challenged by the appellants by filing writ petitions in the High Court . These writ petitions have been dismissed . Hence , the present appeals are before us .
3 . It is contended by the appellants , that although appoint-ments were termed as temporary or ad hoc , they were regularly appointed and continued in service for 7 years . Hence , they should be considered as permanent employees . Their services could not have been terminated as was purported to be done . The appell-ants rely upon certain resolutions passed by the District Panchayat , Shivpuri , under which the Panchayat had sought the Collector’s sanction for giving regular appointments to the appellants . No such sanction was , however , given by the Collec-tor .
4 . According to the appellants there were no rules prescribing procedure for appointments to these posts and the only require-ment was that the approval of the Collector should be obtained . The Resolution of 22-1-1987 , however , provides that until rules are framed for appointment or promotion , the appointments should be made by following the general procedure approved by the Col-lector . There should be a Selection Committee in which the Presi-dent/his representative should also be included . In the present case appointments were made by the Secretary of the Panchayat concerned . It does not seem as if any applications were invited for these posts . The approval of the Collector was not obtained for any regular appointment . Initially , only temporary appoint-ments for limited periods were sanctioned by the Collector . When the Panchayat passed resolutions seeking regular appointment for these appellants , the approval of the Collector was not given to such regular appointment . Therefore , in any view of the matter it would be difficult to consider their appointments as regular .
5 . We , therefore , do not see any reason to take a view differ-ent from the view taken by the High Court . It is , however , sub-mitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that these ap-pellants have worked for 12 years by now and there are no com-plaints regarding their service . Hence , if any regular appoint-ments are made , the cases of the appellants should also be con-sidered by waiving , if necessary , the age bar . We see some force in this contention . We , accordingly , direct that when regular appointments to the posts at present occupied by the appellants are made , the cases of the appellants will also be considered along with the other applicants by waiving the age bar in the case of the appellants , if necessary . Until such regular appoint-ments are made the appellants will continue to function on an ad hoc basis as of now . With these directions the appeals are dis-missed .
1 . The facts in both these appeals are similar . For the sake of convenience we are setting out the facts in CA No. 4954 of 1992. The appellant was appointed in the office of Zila Par-ishad , Shivpuri ( M.P. ) as a Lower Division Clerk temporarily and for a period of 30 days on 5-6-1985 . This temporary appointment was continued after a short break for another 30 days and it was thereafter renewed with short breaks from time to time . The ap-pellant in CA No. 4955 of 1992 was similarly appointed temporari-ly by the same Zila Parishad as a driver for short periods with breaks . The appellants in both the appeals continued in service up to 1992 .
2 . Under a Circular dated 1-10-1984 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat and Rural Development Department , 4 posts were sanctioned for District Panchayats in 29 districts except the districts of Madhya Bharat . The Zila Panchayat of Shivpuri falls in Madhya Bharat . By another Resolution dated 22-1-1987 , 2 additional posts were sanctioned for the District Panchayats . As a result , six posts became available to the Dis-trict Panchayats including the post of a Lower Division Clerk . The Resolution of 22-1-1987 also makes it clear that in the 16 districts of Madhya Bharat where the staff is working from the time when Mandal Panchayats were in existence , the staff will not exceed the six sanctioned posts . In paragraph six it is provided , inter alia , that until rules are framed for appointment and promotion of employees of District Panchayats the appointments would be made after following the general procedure approved by the Collector . In the Selection Committee the President/his representative should also be included . Even after the Resolution of 19-2-1987 the appellants continued to be ad hoc employees . Ultimately under a directive issued by the Deputy Director , Vigilance on behalf of the Director Panchayat , Social Services , M.P. dated 4-6-1991 , it was directed that all irregular appoint-ments made in the District Panchayat , District Shivpuri should be cancelled . Accordingly , by two letters dated 23-3-1992 and 30-7-1992 the appointment of the two appellants was terminated by giving them three months’ previous notice in accordance with Rule 150 of the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Rules , Samwat 2008. Orders of termination were challenged by the appellants by filing writ petitions in the High Court . These writ petitions have been dismissed . Hence , the present appeals are before us .
3 . It is contended by the appellants , that although appoint-ments were termed as temporary or ad hoc , they were regularly appointed and continued in service for 7 years . Hence , they should be considered as permanent employees . Their services could not have been terminated as was purported to be done . The appell-ants rely upon certain resolutions passed by the District Panchayat , Shivpuri , under which the Panchayat had sought the Collector’s sanction for giving regular appointments to the appellants . No such sanction was , however , given by the Collec-tor .
4 . According to the appellants there were no rules prescribing procedure for appointments to these posts and the only require-ment was that the approval of the Collector should be obtained . The Resolution of 22-1-1987 , however , provides that until rules are framed for appointment or promotion , the appointments should be made by following the general procedure approved by the Col-lector . There should be a Selection Committee in which the Presi-dent/his representative should also be included . In the present case appointments were made by the Secretary of the Panchayat concerned . It does not seem as if any applications were invited for these posts . The approval of the Collector was not obtained for any regular appointment . Initially , only temporary appoint-ments for limited periods were sanctioned by the Collector . When the Panchayat passed resolutions seeking regular appointment for these appellants , the approval of the Collector was not given to such regular appointment . Therefore , in any view of the matter it would be difficult to consider their appointments as regular .
5 . We , therefore , do not see any reason to take a view differ-ent from the view taken by the High Court . It is , however , sub-mitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that these ap-pellants have worked for 12 years by now and there are no com-plaints regarding their service . Hence , if any regular appoint-ments are made , the cases of the appellants should also be con-sidered by waiving , if necessary , the age bar . We see some force in this contention . We , accordingly , direct that when regular appointments to the posts at present occupied by the appellants are made , the cases of the appellants will also be considered along with the other applicants by waiving the age bar in the case of the appellants , if necessary . Until such regular appoint-ments are made the appellants will continue to function on an ad hoc basis as of now . With these directions the appeals are dis-missed .
