JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.K. Chand, learned standing counsel.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8th March, 2007 passed by the Additional Director of Education (Madhyamik), Uttar Pradesh rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 6th October, 2004 claiming addition of period of his ad-hoc appointment from 8.1.1975 till 7th April, 1981 for seniority. A writ of mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondents to prepare a fresh seniority list computing the seniority of the petitioner from the date of initial joining, i.e., with effect from 8th January, 1975.
3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in Government Inter College, Arakot (Uttarkashi) on temporary basis by order of the Director of Education dated 24th December, 1974 in pursuance of which he joined on 8th January, 1975 as Assistant Teacher. Petitioner's services were regularised by an order dated 8th April, 1981 in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointment (On Posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. His substantive appointment has been treated with effect from 8th April, 1981 and on that basis he has also been granted promotion on the post of lecturer. The petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 14553 of 2005 claiming seniority from 8th January, 1975, which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 8th December, 2006. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the Additional Director of Education rejected the representation taking the view that petitioner was working only on ad-hoc basis as L.T. Grade Teacher from 8.1.1975 till his services were regularised, hence his seniority can be reckoned only from the date of his substantive appointment, i.e., 8th April, 1981.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenging the impugned order, contended that petitioner is entitled to reckon his seniority from 8th January, 1975, i.e., his date of initial appointment since he was regularised under the 1979 Rules, as aforesaid. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court ; Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on direction 47(A) of the said judgment. He has also placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court ; Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
5. Learned standing Counsel replying the submissions of the petitioner's Counsel, contended that petitioner's initial appointment dated 8th January, 1975 was an ad-hoc appointment and made de-hors the rules and the petitioner having been regularised under 1979 Rules he can treat his substantive appointment only from the date of regularisation and as per the U.P. Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 the seniority is to be given only from the date of substantive appointment, which for the petitioner is 8th April, 1981. Learned standing Counsel further contended that the issues raised in the writ petition are covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2005 (1) ESC. 161; Farhat Hussain Azad v. State of U.P. and Ors.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. A copy of the initial appointment order of the petitioner has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. From a perusal of the said annexure it is clear that the petitioner was given a temporary appointment, which was terminable at any time by one month's notice. Petitioner's case in the writ petition, as stated in paragraph 5, is that services of the petitioner were regularised under 1979 Rules. Petitioner's regularisation is made with effect from 8th April, 1981 under 1979 Rules, which date has been treated as date of his substantive appointment. In the writ petition there is no foundation laid to the effect that petitioner's temporary appointment was made following the procedure as prescribed for appointment. The Apex Court in Direct Recruit's case (supra), which has been relied by Counsel for the petitioner, laid down following in paragraph 47:
47. To sum up, we hold that:
(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation.
The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority.
(B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.
8. The issue as to whether the petitioner's case is covered by corollary of direction (A) or by direction (b). The Full Bench judgment of this Court in Farhat Hussain's case (supra) had occasion to consider the similar issues. The writ petitioners in the said case were also appointed on ad-hoc basis initially, who were regularised under 1979 Rules. It was claimed that the period during which the appointment was ad-hoc/temporary should be reckon for seniority in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Direct Recruit's case (supra). The Full Bench laid down, after considering large number of judgments of the Apex Court including the Direct Recruit's case, that such cases are covered by corollary 2, direction 47(A). Following was laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in paragraphs 42 and 46 of the said judgment:
42. Thus, the law stands crystallised that a person appointed on ad hoc basis on a post de hors the rules or without following any procedure prescribed by law, cannot' claim the benefit of reckoning the period of service rendered by him as such for purpose of seniority or promotion. The case of an individual person claiming such a relief is to be examined in the light of the propositions A' and 'B' propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Direct Recruit Engineers' case reading it along with the explanation given in paragraph 13 of the said judgment, as also explained subsequently by the Hon'ble Apex Court time and again in Keshav Chandra Joshi and others (supra) and Aghore Nath Dey and others (supra). The appointment should be made after considering the suitability of all eligible candidates in strict compliance of the statutory rules. A minor deficiency in following the procedure prescribed under the rules may be ignored but, if the appointment is to be made in consultation with the Commission, such a deficiency cannot be ignored as the appointment itself would be de hors the rules....
46. Rules 4 and 7 of Rules 1979 dealing with regularisation of ad hoc appointment and seniority provide that an ad hoc employee appointed by direct recruitment before 1st January, 1977 and continuing in service on the commencement of the said rules, if possessed the requisite qualification and eligibility at the time of initial appointment for the post, and had completed three years continuous service would be considered for regular appointment against permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available after assessing his suitability, following the reservation policy framed by the State. His seniority shall be considered only from the date of order of substantive appointment after selection in accordance with the said rules. The said Rule 7 reads as under:
Seniority. - (1) A person appointed under these rules shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of the order of appointment after selection in accordance with these rules and shall, in all case, be placed below the persons appointed in accordance with the relevant service rules, or as the case may be, the regular prescribed procedure, prior to the appointment of such person under these rules.
9. Thus the Full Bench has clearly laid down that at ad hoc services prior to regularisation under 1979 Rules cannot be reckon for seniority. The Full Bench judgment in Farhat Hussain's case (supra) squarely covers the present case and in view of the said judgment no infirmity is found in the order impugned rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The judgment of the Apex Court in Rudra Kumar Sain's case (supra) was a case considering different set of rules, namely, Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 where ad-hoc appointment was made on the recommendation of the High Court and due to the above, the Apex Court laid down that ad-hoc services of Additional District Judges be also reckon for seniority. The above case is clearly distinguishable and does not help the petitioner in the present case. The criteria for determination of seniority in accordance with the U.P. Government Service Seniority Rules, 1991 is from the date of substantive appointment. The date of substantive appointment of the petitioner has rightly been treated as 8th January, 1981 after his regularisation in services, which does not suffer from any error.
10. No error has been committed by the Additional Director of Education in rejecting the claim of the petitioner of seniority from the date of his initial ad-hoc/temporary appointment. No good ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order.
The writ petition is dismissed.