Court dismissed an appeal challenging a Single Judge's order denying seniority to an appellant appointed on an ad hoc basis for 89 days, relying on Supreme Court precedent regarding ad hoc services not qualifying for seniority.
Appeal dismissed as it was found to be wholly without merit and not deserving of admission.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
LPA No. 1202 of 2011 (O&M)
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 1202 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January, 18, 2012
Parmala Devi
…Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present: None for the appellant.
Mr. Jaskirat Singh Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab
M.M. KUMAR, J.
-2-
LPA No. 1202 of 2011 (O&M)
that when the appellant was appointed then 22 posts of Clerks were taken out of the purview of the Board, which was the competent authority under the Rules to make recruitment and instead thereof, a selection committee of the department was constituted. The appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis for 89 days by the aforesaid committee. According to Government instructions, the appellant was not entitled to claim seniority over those who had been appointed through the Board after following the due process and issuance of advertisement. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge found that the appellant could not steal march over those who were recruited by the Board.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
January 18, 2012 Atul
2 issues framed by the court
Whether services rendered on an ad hoc basis for 89 days qualify for the purpose of seniority.
Whether an employee appointed on an ad hoc basis can become senior to those appointed by regular recruitment process.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Direct Recruits Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶21
Direct Recruits Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715 · Who else cites this
Parmala Devi
State of Punjab
M.M. Kumar
Ajay Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
