1. The order of reference does not mention the question referred to the Full Bench. We, therefore, formulate the question at; follows : "Whether the Stenographers sponsored by the Employment Exchange and appointed on ad hoc basis by the respondents after written test and interview were entitled to regularisation and seniority from the date of their ad hoc appointments, or from the date of passing the regularisation test held by the Staff Selection Commission?" 2. As the Staff Selection Commission could make no recommendation for filling up certain posts of Stenographers in the office of the 3rd respondent, a requisition was made to the Employment Exchange for sending names of candidates for the said posls. Names were sent by the Employment Exchange and after written test and interview, applicants and others were appointed as Stenographers on ad hoc basis. The appointment letters contained a clause that their services were liable to be terminated after candidates selected by the Staff Selection Commission were made available to the respondents. It appears that subsequently it was decided by the Staff Selection Commission to regularise these Stenographers after holding regularisation examination. The first regularisation test was held in 1982. The applicants did not appear in the said examination. They appeared in the subsequent regularisation examination held in February, 1985. They were successful in the examination and, therefore, hy order dated 6.10.1986 they were regularised from the date of their clearing the regularisalion examination. The applicants were not satisfied with the date of their regularisalion. They wanted it to be from the date of their initial appointment on ad hoc basis. Being unsuccessful in their attempts to persuade the respondents to regularise them and to give seniority from the date of their initial appointments on ad hoc basis, the present O.A. was filed. The applicants have based their claim on a common decision of Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in Dinesh Kumar v.Union of India, O.A. No. 252/86, and a bunch of other cases decided on 23.9.1991. The respondents resisted the O.A. by submitting that the seniority could be fixed only from the date of regularisation in service and not from the date of ad hoc appointment. Under the circumstances, the Division Bench has referred the case to the Full Bench for deciding the dispute between the parties about the date of regularisation and seniority of Stenographers.
3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing me record, we do find two mutually contradictory terms in the appointment letter, Annexure 3, addressed to the applicant No. 1 Kumari Kulwant Kaur Dhanjal. One of the terms says that the appointment was subject to probation for a poriod of two years; whereas the other term says that the appointment was purely on ad hoc basis and the services were liable to be terminated on receipt of selected candidates from the Staff Selection Commission, The appointment letter is on a printed proforma.
We, therefore, find substance in the contention of the respondents in paragraph 7 of their counter that: "..... From the copies of Appointment letters attached by the applicants with the application, it would be observed that these were prepared on standard proforma meant for appointment of Peons/LDC/UDC/Stenographcr (OG) and therefore, it contained a number of paragraphs which did not relate in any way to the service condition of the applicants who had been appointed on a purely ad hoc basis. Mention of confirmation till they qualify departmental examination for ministerial staff within three prescribed chances from the date of their appointment is also one such condition which does not apply and cannot apply as per recruitment rules to those appointed on the posts of Stenographers. It is only a clerical mistake which has been pointed out by the pelitioners/appl ican ts and not something which will take away the basic nature of the appointment i.e., the ad hoc appointment," The applicants cannot, therefore, claim that their ad hoc appointments were on probation for a period of two years. It has not been denied and cannot be denied that the posts of stenographers could be filled up only by the candidates selected and recommended by the Staff Selection Commission. However, as no candidates were available withe the Staff Selection Commission, the respondents were permitted to fill up the vacancies on ad hoc basis and, therefore, it appears that the names of candidates were invited from the Employment Exchange and after short listing the eligible candidates, they were given ad hoc appointments till duly selected candidates from the Staff Selection Commission were available to the Department. It further appears that as the Staff Selection Commission could not get suitable candidates for a long time even after ad hoc appointments, it decided to regularise the services of the ad hoc stenographers after holding regularisation tests for them, because such ad hoc employees could not be allowed to continue as such for an indefinite period. They could, therefore, claim their regularisation and seniority from the dale of passing the regularisation test and not from any other earlier date or from the date of their ad hoc appointment. This view is supported by various decisions of the Supreme Court, such as:Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra, The applicants did not appear in the regularisation test held in 1982 for no reasonable ground. They appeared and passed such test in 1985 and were accordingly regularised and given seniority from the date of their clearing the regularisation test. The applicants cannot, therefore, have any reasonable grievance or claim for regularisation and seniority from the dates of their ad hoc appointments.
4. In Dinesh Kumar's case (supra) relied on by the applicants, the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal did not say that the employees before it were, entitled to regularisation without passing the regularisation test held by the Staff Selection Commission. The employees were directed to be given one more opportunity to face the examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission, relaxing the age, if necessary. It was further directed that if successful, they be regularised in service. So far so good, but the further direction to regularise them "with effect from the date they entered the service" was not in confirmity with various decisions of the Supreme Court in this regard as noted above and, therefore, the applicants cannot get any benefit of that part of the direction of Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal which extended the benefit of regularisation with effect from the initial date of appointment, instead of with effect from the date of their passing the regularisation lest. Accordingly the Division Bench decision of Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal to that extent is hereby overruled.
5. As a result of our discussion aforesaid, our answer to the question before us is as follows:-- "The Stenographers sponsored by the Employment Exchange and appointed on ad hoc basis by the respondents after written test and interview were not entitled to regularisation and seniority from the date of their ad hoc appointments. They were entitled to regularisation and seniority from the date of passing the regularisation test held by the Staff Selection Commission".
6. As no other point survives in this O. A., we, propose to dispose of this O.A. finally on merits instead of sending it back to the Division Bench for further hearing and disposal in accordance with law.
7. In view of our answer to the question before us, we find no merit in this O.A. and accordingly it is hereby dismissed, but without any order as to costs.