Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.
1. These writ appeals arise in somewhat similar circumstances and raise common question. So they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petitions.
The factual aspect of the Writ Appeals.
2. W.A. No. 873/85. The writ petitioner is the appellant in this writ appeal. He holds a degree of M.Sc., in Genetics from the Osmania University in 1979. In the same year, the University advertised a post of Lecturer in Genetics with specialisation in Immuno-Genetics for the appointment. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the said post. As the petitioner was the only candidate having Doctorate and requisite qualifications and specialisation, he was selected by the selection committee and was appointed as Lecturer in Osmania University with effect from 6th July 1979. He has been continuing as Lecturer since July, 1979. The Registrar, Osmania University, issued proceedings on May 4, 1983 stating that the services of ad hoc appointments of the Lecturers were dispensed with from May, 1983. The petitioner's name was also included in the list. It is stated that the description in the order of termination that his appointment was ad hoc appointment is apparently erroneous as he was fully qualified for the substantive post and was appointed after due selection. It is also added that the order of appointment itself does not describe the appointment as ad hoc. Contending that now the appointment cannot be termed as ad hoc, the petitioner filed the writ petition praying for an appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records in proceedings No. 2437/255/79 Adm. 1-2 dated 4th May 1983 and declare the same as illegal and void and for any other appropriate and consequential relief.
3. The Registrar of Osmania University filed a common counter affidavit in this writ petition and in some other writ petition with which we are not concerned here, stating inter alia that pursuant to the advertisement issued in 1979 calling for applications to the post of Lecturers, Readers and Professors in various departments, the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in the Department of Genetics. The petitioner was the only candidate as no other application was received for the said post. After interviewing the petitioner, the Selection Committee opined that since only one application was received, the post might be readvertised and the petitioner might be appointed on ad hoc basis, Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis, on a consolidated pay of Rs. 700/- per month for a period of one year Subsequently, the appointment was extended from time to time, each time by one year. The post was readvertised in the year 1983. Number of applications were received this time for the said post. The petitioner had also applied for the same. The Selection Committee assessed the merits of the candidates and found the petitioner not upto the mark for selection and selected some other candidates for the post, Therefore, the services of the petitioner who was holding the post on ad hoc basis were dispensed with. It is further stated that the petitioner were never kept on probation. The appointment was for a limited period of one year and the subsequent extension was also for a limited period. Whenever a candidate is regularly selected. He will be placed on the scale of pay of the post and on probation. The petitioner knew fully well the nature of the appointment and the tenure for which he was appointed, but did not choose to challenge the same. Having thus accepted the appointment, he is estopped from contending that the selection was on regular basis. When the post which the petitioner was holding, was readvertised he applied for the same without protest. This clearly suggests that the petitioner knew that he was appointed on ad hoc basis only and it is not open to him to challenge the appointment orders at this stage. If highly meritorious candidates are available, the petitioner cannot claim that he alone should be selected having regard to the past experience. Due to the interim orders granted in favour of the petitioner the candidates who were actually selected could not be appointed in the post held by the petitioner. The petitioner has not impleaded them as parties. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit denying the material allegations made in the counter affidavit and stated that the Selection Committee arbitrarily decided to readvertise the post on the ground that only one application was received and that the advertisement issued in 1979 in so far as the Genetic Department is concerned was in respect of the post of Lecturer in Genetics with specialisation in Immuno-Genetics and that several applications were received but the petitioner alone was called for the interview presumably because the other applicants did not have specialisation in the said subject and that he was appointed as a person having specialisation and that as he possessed the requisite qualifications, his appointment should be treated as regular, not ad hoc. It is added that pursuant to another advertisement issued in the year 1982 calling for applications for the posts of Lecturer in Genetics, he made application in October, 1982 but that was not the post which required specialisation in Immuno-Genetics, and that in regard to those posts neither interviews were held nor selections were made. It is denied that the petitioner applied to the post in response to the readvertisement in the year 1983. It is further submitted that the only occasion when he was called for interview was in respect of an application made in the year 1979 and that he was never called for an interview in response to his application made in October 1982. The allegation that the petitioner was found not upto the mark for selection held in the year 1983 is denied as he was not called for any interview in 1983 and it is submitted that the allegation that his services were dispensed with as he was found not upto the mark, is absolutely incorrect and misleading.
5. Our learned brother, Sardar Ali Khan, J before whom the writ petition came up for hearing held that he petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on ad hoc basis in 1979 and he could not claim that he was appointed permanently as Lecturer in Genetics of Osmania University services. However, the learned Judge has directed the respondent to continue the petitioner till selection is made by the respondent for the post of Lecturer in Genetics and has observed that in case the respondent-University proceeds with the selection, or appointment, the case of the petitioner may also be considered. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge, the petitioner filed this writ appeal.
6. Writ Appeal No. 1434/88 : In this appeal, the Osmania University, respondent in the W.P., is the appellant. In this case also, the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Genetics in Osmania University pursuant to the advertisement dated 14th May, 1979. Three candidates, including the petitioner, were selected on July 30, 1979 and the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Genetics on ad hoc basis. The remaining candidates were appointed on regular basis, The petitioner joined duty on 31st July 1979. His appointment was also approved by the Syndicate of the Osmania University on 14th September, 1979. When the respondent did re-advertise within the period of six months or within a reasonable period thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 20th September 1982 requesting the authorities to regularise his services. Before disposing of the said representation, the post was readvertised calling for applications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Genetics. Subsequently, on 8th October, 1982 the representation of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner challenged this action of the respondent in the writ petition.
7. The then Registrar of the Osmania University filed a counter affidavit of behalf of the respondent. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Genetics on an ad hoc basis in 1979 and that the appointment was made in accordance with the procedure laid down by the statute. The Selection Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on ad hoc basis whereas in the case of other two candidates there was no such recommendation. This is due to the fact that the petitioner was not found fit for regular appointment and other two were found fit for regular appointment. The decision to appoint the petitioner on ad hoc basis was taken on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The petitioner, it is stated, was appointed on a consolidated pay of Rs. 700/- per month and the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was ratified by the University Syndicate in its meeting held on 14th September, 1979. It is submitted that under the Osmania University Act, 1959. The Syndicate has power to appoint teachers on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted under Section 39 of the Osmania University Act. Having been so appointed, the petitioner cannot contend that he was appointed on regular basis. It is stated that the Selection Committee after taking into consideration the entire bio-data, qualifications, experience and the performance of the candidate at the interview, has power to select or reject a particular candidate and it has also power to make recommendations to make ad hoc appointment keeping in view the requirements of the University and the exigencies involved. It is not open to the petitioner to assail the validity of the selection. The petitioner has to get himself selected for regular appointment pursuant to any advertisement that may be made by the authorities. In these circumstances it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
8. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit reiterating the facts stated in his writ affidavit. It is stated that pursuant to the selection made by the Section Committee the 1st respondent appointed him as Lecturer in Genetics on ad hoc basis in anticipation of the approval of the Syndicate and the Syndicate approved the appointment in its 279the meeting held on 14th September, 1979 and from that time he has been working as Lecturer drawing the salary in the pay scale and allowances. It is stated that the Selection Committee has no power to select Lecturers or Professors on ad hoc basis. It has power either to select or reject the candidates, if they are not suitable. Applications were invited for regular posts and the petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee as Lecturer for one of three regular posts and the petitioner was appointed in one of the said regular posts, though the appointment was termed as ad hoc. It is stated that the appointment can be said to be ad hoc only when it is known at the time of the appointment that the appointment is for a specified period or when a temporary post is created for a specified period or when an officiating or temporary appointment is made in a leave vacancy or for some similar reasons. Hence it is submitted that the appointment of the petitioner cannot be termed as ad hoc appointment. It is added that the Finance Committee of the University by its Resolution dated 2nd July, 1979 categorically gave a ruling that the ad hoc appointments shall be made only of a period of six months. The resolution also says that the candidates were rejected by the Selection Committee, they should not be appointed on ad hoc basis. Copy of the said resolution was communicated by the Joint Registrar (Administration) to all the Principals, Finance Officer and Audit Officer in his Proceedings No. 6853/49/78 Admn(G) II-1 dated 1st August, 1979. It is stated that the petitioner has been working as Lecturer in Genetics Department in Nizam College since 1979 by discharging his duties to the satisfaction of the students and the Head of the Department. The contention that the Selection Committee has to select him for regular post is disputed as being without any force. It is asserted that he was selected by the Selection Committee for regular post along with two other candidates. Therefore, his appointment should be treated on regular basis.
9. An additional counter affidavit is filed by the University after the reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner. The averments made in the counter affidavit and the contentions raised therein are reiterated. It is further stated that the recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment of the petitioner on ad hoc basis was duly approved by the Syndicate on 14th September, 1979. The petitioner has not assailed the decision of the Syndicate regarding his appointment. Section 39 of the Osmania University Act, 1959 provides for the constitution of Selection Committee and Section 21 deals with the powers of the Syndicate. It is stated that the syndicate has powers to appoint teachers of the University on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted under Section 39. It is also stated that the powers of the Finance committee are laid down in Section 43. The matters stated in the letter of the Finance Committee are not within the purview of the Committee under Section 43. Even if the said order pertains to ad hoc appointment, the appointment of the petitioner should be treated as contrary to the said order dated 2nd August, 1979 and it is a void order and cannot become a valid order on the ground of violation of orders dated 1st August, 1979. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
10. Our learned brother Seetharami Reddi, J (as he then was) who decided the writ petition held that the so called ad hoc appointment should not in the peculiar circumstances of the case, be allowed to be treated ad hoc any more and that the petitioner deserved to be regularised and thus allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the University has filed this writ appeal.
The Contentions of the Parties :
11. Sri Raghuram and Sri M. V. Ramana Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submit that the appointments of the petitioners were made to permanent posts after due advertisements on the basis of the selection by the Selection Committee constituted under the Osmania University Act, and therefore, the appointments cannot be treated as ad hoc, even if they are so described in the orders of appointments. It is further contended that the expression 'ad hoc' applies to an appointment which is made for a specified period or for specified reason and where the ad hoc appointment is continued indefinitely, the action of the respondents in readvertising the post for fresh Selection and appointment to the said posts to the prejudice of the petitioners would be arbitrary exercise of power, as such violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India.
12. The learned Standing Counsel for the Osmania University on the other hand contends that the selection of the candidates was made by the Selection Committee for ad hoc appointment, that, therefore, the petitioner get no right to the post and that such an appointment cannot be treated as regular appointment contrary to the intention of the Selection Committee and the appointing authority. The learned counsel further contends that the length of time for which the ad hoc appointment is continued does not confer any rights on the petitioner to the post. If on further Selection, should the Selection Committee recommend their cases for regular appointment, then only they will get the right to the post. As the petitioners have no rights to the post, the process of selection pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents inviting applications for the posts cannot be interdicted at the instance of the petitioners.
13. Having regard to the above contentions, the following two questions arise for consideration :
1. Whether the appointment of person to a permanent post after due Selection, though termed as ad hoc, can be treated as substantive appointment
2. Whether termination of services of an ad hoc employee who is eligible to be appointed to the post, after considerable length of service amounts to arbitary exercise of power.
14. Before dealing with these questions, it would be useful to refer to the cases cited at the bar.
15. In S. A. Hussain v. State : AIR1971AP1 . the question before the Full Bench of our High Court was whether the rule of first promotion of the Tahsildars in Telangana Region as Deputy Collectors in the State of A.P. according to Hyderabad Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 1955 implies (a) that there can be not temporary or provisional promotion of such Tahsildars after 1st November, 1956 or (b) that the promotion though 'expressly made temporary or provisional after 1st November, 1956, would amount to a permanent promotion. Answering this question the Full Bench held :
'... as far as the promotion of Thasildar to the post of Deputy collector is concerned, there was no question of referring the matter to the Public Service commission after 1st November, 1956. Evidently the appointment made without selection can never be considered as a regular appointment and if such an appointment is termed as temporary or provisional, it can never amount to a permanent promotion. In cases where the promotion is made after undergoing the process necessary for regular promotion but if such promotion is termed as temporary or provisional, such a promotion cannot be held temporary or provisional merely because it is so termed.'
16. In R. N. Nanjundappa v. Thimmaiah (1972-I-LLJ-565) the Governor of Mysore made Rules under Proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India to regularise the appointment of the Principal of School of Mines, Oorgaum which was made in violation of the existing Rules. It was held by the Supreme Court thus (p. 572) :
'If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, illegality cannot be regularised. Ratification or regularisation is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority, but there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularisation cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment.'
17. In B. V. Reddy v. Union of India 1973 LIC 139. A Full Bench of our High Court laid down that the question whether an appointment is of purely temporary character within the scope of Rule 10-A(1) of State and Subordinate Service Rules or whether it has the incidents of permanent tenture must in the ultimate analysis depend on the specific terms of the appointment. The Full Bench observed thus :
'When the appointing authority makes its intention clear that the tenure is to be temporary the Court should not attribute to him an intention which is expressly disclaimed by the authority when the appointment was made. It may be permissible to say that in the particular circumstances it was not competent for the authority to make a temporary appointment. If the power to make a temporary appointment is conditioned by certain other factors and such conditions are not shown to have been present in a particular case there might be a justifiable basis for setting aside the appointment as one passed on an irregular exercise of the power. But the court cannot substitute its own judgment for the volition or the opinion of the appointing authority.'
18. In Savitri Devo v. M. C. of Delhi 1979 (2) SLR. 540, by virtue of the policy of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in its circular issued in 1963, appointments were made to the posts of Head Masters and Head Mistresses in village schools. The appointment of the petitioner was termed as ad hoc for a period of five years. Others who were appointed under the said circular were confirmed, but the petitioner was reverted after two years of service. The learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court rejected the contention that the appointment was ad hoc and so the petitioner had no right to the post and held that no significance can be attached to the use of the word ad hoc in the appointment letter, and it had to be treated as on regular basis. The order of reversion was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory.
19. In Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P. : (1981)ILLJ140SC the Supreme Court was concerned with the question of fixation of seniority of the temporary employees vis-a-vis permanent employees. The Supreme Court held :
'We see no reason to hold that when engineers are appointed to temporary posts but after fulfillment of all tests for regular appointments, including consultation with the Public Service Commission, they are not appointments in a substantive capacity.'
20. In Satwant Kaur v. PGI Chandigarh 1985(1) SLR. 1 the learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a person appointed on ad hoc basis has no right to have his services regularised. The petitioner in that case was appointed as Lecturer on ad hoc basis as the post itself was sanctioned for one year. The period was extended from time to time and the petitioner continued to work in the said post. When the post was advertised for regular appointment, the petitioner did not apply within the prescribed period but claimed that her services should be regularised.
21. In Narendar Chadha v. Union of India : [1986]1SCR211 also the Supreme Court was dealing with a case of fixation of seniority between promotees and direct recruits to the posts in Grade IV of Indian Economic Service and Indian Statistical Service. The promotees to the said posts from different departments were holding the posts from the date of their respective promotions from 1962. The direct recruitments were made some time in 1968. Speaking for the Bench, Venkatramaiah, J. (as he than was) while rejecting the contention of the direct recruits that the promotees who were not appointed in accordance with Rule 8(1) (a) (ii) of the Rules, could not be treated as members of Indian Statistical Service hence there was no question of determining seniority as between the promotees and the direct recruits, observed :
'It cannot be said that whenever a person is appointed in a post without following the Rules prescribed for appointment to that post, he should be treated as a person regularly appointed to that post. Such a person may be reverted from that post. But in a case where persons have been allowed to function in higher posts for 15 to 20 years with due deliberation it would be certainly unjust to hold that they have no sort of claim to such post and could be reverted unceremoniously or treated as persons not belonging to the Service at all, particular where the Government is endowed with the power to relax the Rules to avoid unjust results.'
22. In the absence of any Service Rules/Regulations to the contra, in the light of the above decisions, the following propositions can be formulated :
1. A cadre post can be temporary or permanent. There can be an ad hoc or temporary appointment in a temporary or even a permanent post, but there cannot be a permanent appointment in a temporary post.
2. Whether an appointment to any post is ad hoc, temporary or permanent depends upon the intention of appointing authority, the intention can be gathered from the circumstances leading to the appointment in question, terms of advertisement notifying the post for appointment, procedure followed in making the appointment and the order of appointment itself.
3. Where a person has been appointed to a permanent post in accordance with the service Rules after undergoing the process of selection (where such process includes consultation with Public Service Commission after due consultation) it would be reasonable to presume that the intention of the appointing authority is to make appointment in substantive capacity or permanently and describing the appointment as ad hoc or temporary, would not alter the nature of the appointment. In such a case the word 'ad hoc' or temporary has to be ignored and the appointment has to be treated as permanent, but where in the advertisement or otherwise the post itself is described as temporary or for a fixed period as stop-gap arrangement and the appointment is made without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules for such appointment, it can be presumed that the intention of the appointing authority is to make ad hoc or temporary appointment whether or not these expressions appear in the order of appointment.
4. Where it is found that the intention of the appointing authority is to make ad hoc or temporary appointment, the Courts cannot attribute a different intention. Even so the authority must act diligently and when the posts have to be filed on permanent basis, he should do so within a reasonable period. Where the employer with full knowledge of the nature of the appointment allows the employee to continue in the post for a considerable length of time, he cannot be permitted to treat the appointment as ad hoc and fill up the post by putting an end to the services of the employee resulting in great prejudice and undue hardship to his as it amounts to exercise of powers arbitrarily and capriciously.
23. At the outset it may be mentioned that both the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Osmania University agree that except Section 39 of the Osmania University Act, there is no other provision governing the appointment of Lecturers either under the Act or under the Statute and that no regulations have been framed by the University in that behalf. Section 39 of the Act reads as follows :
'39. Constitution of Selection Committee :- (1) There shall be constituted a Selection Committee in regard to the appointment of Professors, Readers and Lecturers which shall consist of the following, namely :-
(1) the Vice-Chancellor;
(2) nominee of the University Grants Commission,
(3) three experts from outside the University to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, of whom atleast two shall be present in the Selection Committee;
(4) Chairman of the Board of Studies concerned;
(5) Head of the Department concerned;
Provided that no person shall participate in the meetings of this Selection Committee for any appointment, if he or his near relative is a candidate for the appointment;
Provided further that no teacher holding a post lower in rank than the one to which the appointment is to be made, shall be a member of Selection Committee.
(2) The Dean of the Academic Affairs shall be the Secretary of the Selection Committee, if there is no such Dean, the Registrar shall be the Secretary.'
24. From a perusal of the Section extracted above, it is obvious that the section only speaks of constitution of Selection Committee and the members thereof and does not deal with either the nature of or the procedure for appointment to be made by the University to different posts.
25. Keeping the above noted principles in mind, we shall now consider the facts of each case. But before we do so, it would be appropriate to ascertain the meaning of the expression 'ad hoc appointment.' It has to be construed in its ordinary meaning for we do not have rules or regulations dealing with service conditions of university employees, from which we could have possibly drawn some aid in ascertaining the meaning of the said expression.
26. The word 'ad hoc' is defined in the Oxford Shortened Dictionary in the following words :
'ad hoc' for this or the particular purpose.'
27. In S. K. Verma v. State a Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court interpreted the phrase 'ad hoc employee' in the following words :
'The term ad hoc employee is conveniently used for a wholly temporary employee, engaged either for a particular period or for a particular purpose and one whose services can be terminated with the maximum of ease. Therefore, having regard to the ordinary meaning of the term no distinction can reasonably be drawn betwixt a temporary employee whose services are terminable without notice or otherwise and an employee characterised as ad hoc and employed on similar terms.
As against the permanent, quasi-permanent, and temporary employee, the ad hoc one appears at the lowest level implying that he had been engaged casually, or for a stop-gap arrangement for a short duration or fleeting purposes.
The issue of the termination of the services of an ad hoc employee is strictly confined betwixt him and the State. Neither the academic qualifications of a proposed incumbent to fill the vacancy nor the nature of the tenure offered to him should have any legal consequences on the power or otherwise of the employer State to dispense or not with the services of an ad hoc employee.
In case of a simple termination of services in accordance with the contract of employment clearly specifying that these may be dispensed with any time without giving any notice, no question of Art. 311 being attracted arises. The services of the ad hoc employees not being governed by any statute or service rules, none of these interposed to bar the right of termination of the services with the letters of appointment.'
28. In our view, the expression 'ad hoc appointment' connotes an appointment made as stop gap arrangement for a specific period or for a specific purpose, for example an appointment of a person in a leave vacancy or appointment of guardian for a minor for purposes of a suit and the like; when period or purpose is not indicated in the order of appointment, it has to be treated as one for a short period.
29. In the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 4222/83, the advertisement issued inviting applications for the post of Lecturer in Genetics in so far as it is relevant reads as follows :
'Osmania University,
Hyderabad 500 007
February 1979.
Advertisement No. 5/1979
Applications in the prescribed form together with the registration fee of Rs. 5/- are invited for the following posts in the University Service, so as to reach the undersigned on or before 12th March 1979.
1. Professor of Rs. 1500-60-1800-100- History 2000-125/2-25002. Lecturers in MechanicalEngineering/Genetics/Sociology. Rs. 700-40-1100-50-1600 Qualification :
XX XX XXLecturers in (i) Atleast a SecondGenetic/ Class Master'sSociology. Degree in the subjectconcerned with 55(B+)marks in aggregate froman Indian University oran examination recognizedas equivalentthereof from any otherrecognised University.(ii) A research degree odoctorate standard orpublished work ofequivalent standard.Specialisation -Lecturer inGenetics Immuno-Genetics'
30. In reply to the said notification, the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer. Interviews for selection of the said post were conducted on May 8, 1979. The petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee on the said date and was appointed as Lecturer. The order of appointment of the petitioner reads as follows :
'Osmania University,
Hyderabad 500007.
No. 6192/96/1979/Adm. (G) II-1 dated 4-7-1979ORDERS
Sub :- University Teachers-Faculty of Science-Appointment of Lecturer in Genetics on temporary basis-Orders issued.
On the recommendation of the Selection Committee and in anticipation of the approval of the University Syndicate, the Vice-Chancellor has accorded sanction for the temporary appointment of Dr. Mohd. Ishaq, M.Sc., Ph.D. (Osm) as Lecturer in Genetics at the Department of Genetics, Osmania University on a consolidated pay of Rs. 700/- p.m. with effect from 6th July 1979 or the date of his joining duty thereafter. He will draw his salary from the vacant post of Readers in Genetics at the Department of Genetics, Osmania University.
The above appointment is subject to the Rules and conditions of service in force in University from time to time.
He shall have no claim by virtue of this temporary appointment for his permanent absorption in the University Service.
He shall report to the Principal, University Collage of Science, Osmania University.
Sd/-
Registrar'
31. Both from the advertisement as well as from the order of appointment of the petitioner dated 4th July 1979, it is clear that the appointment was in clear vacancy and not for a fixed period or for any specified purpose. It is evident that the appointment was made on the recommendation of the Selection committee and in anticipation of the approval of the University Syndicate by the Vice-Chancellor. Though he was appointed on a consolidated pay of Rs. 700/-, in fact he has been paid in the scale of pay of Lecturer.
32. What is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the University is that the Selection Committee has recommended the appointment on ad hoc basis, and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any right to the post. We are unable to agree, firstly because notwithstanding the recommendation of the Selection Committee the order of appointment does not say that the appointment is ad hoc and secondly because the petitioner was not told about the recommendation of Selection Committee.
33. The recommendation of the Selection Committee reads as follows :
'Osmania University : Recommendations of the Selection Committee
Date of Meeting - 8th May 1979 : Selection of Lecturer in Genetics : Advertisement no. 5/79 dated March 79.
Present
XX XX XX
(1) candidates were summoned for the interview.
(-) candidates failed to appear before them.
(-) were considered on paper.
Of the candidates interviewed, the Committee recommended for appointment to the post in question the following persons, the order of their preference being :-
SI. No. Name1. Only one candidate applied. The post may be readvertised. Dr. Md. Ishaq may be appointed on ad hoc basis.'
34. From the above recommendation, it appears that as only one candidate applied for the post, it was suggested that the post be readvertised and the appointment be made on ad hoc basis. The learned Standing Counsel, however, contends that though the reason given for recommending appointment on ad hoc basis and readvertisement of the post was that only one candidate applied, yet in fact the reason for suggesting an ad hoc appointment by the Selection Committee was that the petitioner had not come upto the mark. In effect, the learned counsel wants us to read something which the Selection Committee has not stated and ignore that which the Selection Committee has stated. We find it impossible to accede to this contention of the learned Standing Counsel. It is clear to us that Selection Committee did select the petitioner and suggested his appointment on ad hoc basis. But the fact remains, as noted above, that the appointment was not made on ad hoc basis; it was made on temporary basis. In the absence of any statutory provision to the contra, we may observe that the function of the Selection Committee is only to test the suitability of the candidate for the post; it is not for the Selection committee to suggest the nature of appointment - whether it should be permanent, temporary or ad hoc. This has to be done by the appointing authority depending upon the requirements of the institution. Where, however, the Selection Committee after selecting a candidate adds 'temporary' or 'ad hoc' against the name of the candidate, the same has to be ignored as being superfluous. This part of the recommendation is not binding on the appointing authority. In fact, in this case the appointing authority did ignore the recommendation to appoint on ad hoc basis and appointed temporarily. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the appointment of the petitioner was on ad hoc basis.
35. The petitioner was appointed in 1979 and without re-advertising the post, as suggested by the Selection Committee, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with by the impugned order. The respondents in their counter-affidavit stated that -
'So far as the petitioner in W.P. 4222/83 is concerned I submit that pursuant to an advertisement issued in 1979 calling for applications to the posts of Lecturers, Readers and Professors in various Departments, the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in the Department of Genetics. Only the petitioner was the applicant and no other applications were received. After examining the petitioner the Selection Committee opined that since only one application is received, the post may be readvertised and the petitioner may be appointed on ad hoc basis. Accordingly the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis on a consolidated pay of Rs. 700/- per month for a period of one year. Subsequently the appointment was extended from time to time, each time by one year. The post was re-advertised in the year 1983. Number of applications were received this time for the said post. The petitioner had also applied for the same. The Selection Committee assessed the merits of the candidates and found the petitioner not upto the mark for selection. Therefore, his services were dispensed with since some other candidate was selected for the post which he was holding on ad hoc basis. It is these orders orders through which their services were dispensed with that are challenged in these writ petitions.'
36. As can be seen from the above, the impugned order is sought to be defended on the ground that the post was re-advertised in the year 1983, the petitioner applied for the same, appeared for the selection, but did not come upto the mark and therefore his services were dispensed with. In view of the averments in the reply affidavit denying the same, we called upon the learned Standing Counsel to produce before us the advertisement of 1983 and the recommendations of the Selection Committee in respect of the post held by the petitioner. The learned counsel has conceded that the post held by the petitioner was not readvertised and that no interviews were conducted by the Selection Committee for the said post in 1983. It is also stated that the petitioner neither appeared nor was he found to be lacking in merit by the Selection Committee.
37. Pausing here, we would like to observe that when a counter affidavit is filed by a statutory body like University and the person who swears the affidavit is no less than the Registrar, the Courts expect that the facts would be stated with precise accuracy after due verification. Even though on the basis of the averments in the counter affidavit, without anything more, we are not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that such allegations are made mala fide, the conclusion that the said averments in the counter affidavit which are incorrect and highly misleading, have been made recklessly without verifying as to the truth or otherwise of the same, is inevitable. It is brought to our notice that the said Registrar has retired. So we think it unnecessary to pursue the matter except to observe that it is of utmost importance that the affidavits filed in courts should contain only correct statements of facts and when the facts are stated on the basis of record, after due verification of records. The responsibility of Government official and the officers of statutory institutions to observe this minimum requirement of verification of the record and ensuring that each averments in that affidavit should find basis in the record, cannot but be emphasized. Any incorrect statement in the affidavit, whether made deliberately or recklessly without verification of records, would entail dismissal of writ petition or striking off defence as the case may be.
38. In this case, the undisputed facts are that pursuant to the advertisement issued in 1979 to the post of Lecturer in Genetics with specialisation in Immuno-Genetics, only one person, namely, the petitioner, applied and he was selected by the Selection Committee and was appointed by the competent authority without specifying the appointment as ad hoc though the Selection Committee suggested to make ad hoc appointment and to readvertise the post on the ground that only one candidate applied for the post; yet the post was not advertised till now though ten years have elapsed. These facts clearly indicate that the intention of the appointing authority was not to make ad hoc appointment. Even assuming that the appointment of the petitioner was only ad hoc the respondent cannot now be permitted to advertise the post to fill up the same as it would cause irreparable injury and untold hardship to the petitioner as he has become overaged for any fresh appointment and after having put in ten years of service, he cannot be made to face the risk of undergoing a fresh selection once again with uncertain result. For the aforesaid reasons, We are unable to agree with the learned single Judge that the petitioner's appointment was on ad hoc basis. We accordingly set aside the judgment under appeal.
39. The writ petition and the writ appeal are allowed.
40. Now coming to the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 7629/82, we may notice that the advertisement was issued for the post of Lecturer in Genetics. The advertisement reads as follows :
'Osmania University
Hyderabad 500 037
April 1979.
Advertisement No. 8/79
Applications in the prescribed form together with the registration fee of Rs. 5/- are invited for the following posts in the University Service, so as to reach the undersigned on or before 14-5-79.
7. Lecturers in Genetics. Rs. 700-40-1100-50-1600
Qualifications :
XX XX XX
Post Nos. 4 to 8 :- 1. Consistently good academic record with 1st or high 2nd class Master's Degree in the relevant subject with 55% (B) marks in the aggregate from an Indian University or an examination recognised as equivalent thereto from any other recognised University.
(ii) A research Degree of a Doctorate standard or published work of an equivalent standard.'
41. On the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee the petitioner was admittedly appointed as Lecturer on ad hoc basis on 30th July 79 on consolidated pay of Rs. 700/- per month at Nizam College. The Selection Committee interviewed four candidates and made the following recommendations :
'Osmania University - Recommendations of the Selection Committee.
Date of Meeting - 24th July 1979 : Selection of Lecturers in Genetics : Advertisement 8/79 dated April 79.
Present
XX XX XX
(4) candidates were summoned for
(-) candidates failed to appear before them.
(-) were considered on paper.
Of the candidates interviewed, the Committee recommended for appointment to the post in question the following persons, the order of their preference being :-
SI. No. Name
1. Dr. A. K. Sarala
2. Dr. Syed Yousuf Anwar.
3. Dr. S. Prabhakar (on ad hoc basis)
sd/-
Chairman'
42. From the recommendations of the Selection Committee, it is seen that three candidates were selected and against the name of petitioner 'on ad hoc basis' is noted. It has already been stated above that the function of the Selection Committee is only to test the suitability of the candidates for the posts for which selection is made and that the expression 'ad hoc' or 'temporary' included in the recommendation is superfluous, albeit the position would be different when the Selection Committee is called upon to select candidates for posts come of which are permanent, some temporary and some ad hoc. In such a case, the Selection Committee would be justified in writing against the names of the candidates as to who is selected for what posts. This is not the position here. But, however, the petitioner was recommended for appointment on ad hoc basis. In this case also from the advertisement as well as from the order of appointment, it is obvious that the appointment of the petitioner was made to a permanent post after due selection by the Selection committee. It is also clear that the petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee. It is also clear that the petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee and was not found to be unfit by the Selection Committee. He is being paid his salary on the scale of pay of a Lecturer. For these reasons we cannot agree that the intention of the appointing authority was to make appointment on ad hoc basis merely because the word ad hoc is used in the order of appointment of the petitioner pursuant to the recommendations of the Selection Committee. In this case the petitioner having waited for three years applied for his regularisation and without disposing of that representation, the University readvertised the post after a period of three years. Further, the learned single Judge observed that allowing the respondent to readvertise the post after a considerable lapse of time, well over three years, without any adversity in respect of his service, would confer an arbitrary power on the authority to keep the damocle's sword-ad hocism-hanging over the head of such persons and thereby jeopardising their career. It was further observed that a candidate initially appointed on ad hoc basis after due selection and ad hocism is allowed for a period of three years or four years or five years and then fresh advertisement is made, the concerned employee would become age-barred which would result in an untold and irreparable hardship and injury to him. We entirely agree with the reasoning of the learned single Judge.
43. In our view, even when the appointment is made ad hoc, the action of the authorities prejudically affecting the interest of the appointees, in exercise of their power, after a lapse of considerable time, cannot but be held to be arbitrary. We, therefore, confirm the order of the learned single Judge and dismiss the Writ Appeal No. 1434 of 1988.
44. Having regard to the circumstances of the cases, the parties are directed to bear their own costs in both the writ appeals.