UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES,

PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

Service Law Project

Topic:- Ad Hoc Employees

Submitted to:- Submitted By:- Neerja

Ms. Mahima Roll No. :- 266/19
Class:- B.Com.LL.B (HONS)
Section :- E
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Primarily, I would thank God for being able to complete this project with success.
Then I would like to thank my subject teacher of Service Law - Ms. Mahima, whose
valuable guidance has been the ones that helped me patch this project and make it
a full proof success, his suggestions and instructions has served as the major
contribution towards completion of the project.

Then I would like to thank my parents who have helped me select topic as well as
with their valuable suggestions and guidance which has been helpful in various
phases of the completion of the project.

Last but not the least I would thank myself who completed this project on time and
with full efforts.

Neerja

TABLE OF INDEX

S.NO. CONTENT

1. introduction

2. Meaning of Ad Hoc Appointment

3. Status and Rights of Ad Hoc Appointment

4. Procedure of Making Ad Hoc Appointment

5. Protection Available to Ad Hoc Appointment

6. Termination of Services

7. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointment

8. Counting of an Ad Hoc Service Towards Seniority

9. Benefit of Seniority, promotion and pension to Ad Hoc Employees

10. Bibliography
 1. INTRODUCTION

Article 309 of the Constitution of India confers power on the appropriate authority to regulate the
recruitment to the public services of the Union or of any State. It enables the Executive to make
recruitment to the government services. However, this power of the Executive is subjected to the
provisions of the Constitution and the provisions of any statute enacted by the appropriate
Legislature. It has been held that the creation and abolition of a post is the prerogative of the
Executive. The Executive may exercise this power either by making rules under the proviso to
Article 309 or (in the absence of such rules) by issuing rules/instructions in the exercise of its
executive power.

Normally, the appointments to government services are made through the prescribed agency. But
exigencies of administration may sometimes call for making of ad hoc or temporary appointments.
It has been held that the power to make ad hoc appointments may be visualized to tide over
unforeseen exigencies1. The object behind the exercise of this power is to run smooth
administration.

2. MEANING OF AD HOC APPOINTMENT

Literally the term "ad hoc" means "arranged or done for a particular purpose only." It means
"something which is formed for a particular purpose." Referring to Black's Law Dictionary, the apex
court in Rudra Kumar sain V. Union of India 2, distinguished between the terms "ad hoc", "stop-
gap" and "fortuitous", which are in frequent use in service jurisprudence. The Apex court said -

"The expression "fortuitous" means "occurring by chance", the expression "ad hoc" means
"something which is formed for a particular purpose" and the expression "stop-gap" means "a
temporary way of dealing with the problem or satisfying a need". Appointments made for a
particular purpose without reference to wider application or employment would fall in the category
of appointments on ad hoc basis. Such appointments must be considered in the context of the
services under the rule making control of the government. If a very wide meaning is given to the

1
J & K Public Service Commision V. Narinder Mohan AIR 1994 SC 1808
2
AIR 2000 SC 2808
term ad hoc, it can be said that all post requiring specialized knowledge are ad hoc as
appointments are made thereto for a particular purpose and not for any general purpose 3.

Ad hoc appointments are generally made when there is temporary vacancy. It may also be that the
service rules may themselves provide for the making of ad hoc appointment.

The court further elucidated that if an appointment was made to meet the contingency arising on
account of delay in completing the process of regular recruitment to the post due to any reason
and it was not possible to leave the post vacant till then, and to meet that contingency an
appointment was made, then it could appropriately be called as a "stop-gap" arrangement and
appointment in the post as "ad hoc" appointment. The court further said that it was not possible to
neither lay down any straight jacket formula nor give an exhaustive list of circumstances and
situations, in which an ad hoc appointment could be made.

Appointment of typist in Railways made, without the process of selection, by relaxing the rules,
would be ad hoc. The period of such appointment, where the same was continuous and was
followed by selection through Public Service Commission would count towards seniority.

But merely because there was no relevant service rules for recruitment to the post, it cannot be
assumed that such appointment has been made without any selection and, as such appointment
would attract the expression "ad hoc". The question, as to whether an appointment is "ad hoc",
has to be answered on the basis of relevant factors, namely, the nature of the post, the nature of
test or selection held for the filling up the post, the period of duration with which incumbent availed
the post and all other relevant materials."

3. STATUS AND RIGHTS OF AD HOC APPOINTMENT

 STATUS OF AD HOC EMPLOYEES

As regards the status, the ad hoc employees virtually stand at the lowest rung as against
permanent, quasi-permanent and temporary employees. It has been held that an ad hoc employee
does not acquire the right to hold the post or to continue in employment indefinitely in contrast to a
regular employee. The ad hoc employees are said to form a distinct class. 13

3
Justice T. S. Doabia, “The Law of Services and Dismissal”, 4th edition, voll, Nagpur, pg 756
It being a stop-gap arrangement, an ad hoc appointment does not automatically give any vested
right to the appointee to claim continuity in service till it is regularized. It is only transient in nature
pending the allotment of employees selected according to the prescribed rules and regulations.

 RIGHTS OF AN AD HOC APPOINTEE

The rights of an ad hoc appointee may be stated as under: 14

i. NO RIGHT TO THE POST:-

An ad hoc appointee or promotee has no right to the post.
In Director, Institute of Management Development V. Pushpa Srivstava 4, it was held that
where the appointment is purely on ad hoc basis and is contractual and any efflux of time the
appointment comes to an end, the person holding such post can have no right to continue in the
post.
An ad hoc appointment does not by itself confer any right on the ad hocist for regular appointment
in such a post. But it is equally true that even though an ad hoc appointee has no right to hold that
post to which he is so appointed, he can nevertheless be reverted to his lower substantive post
only for valid reasons such as his unsuitability to hold the post, the availability of the person
holding a lien on the post, selection of a regular incumbent or other exigencies of public service.
An ad hoc appointment, though by its nature a precarious tenure nevertheless carries a limited
right to that extent and if such an appointee is reverted illegally and arbitrarily, he would be entitled
to challenge it and seek enforcement of his right5.

ii. LIABLE TO BE DISCHARGED:-

They are liable to be discharged or reverted to make room for a regular appointee or promotee,
pending which the ad hoc arrangement was resorted to.

Iii. DISCHARGE WOULD NOT ATTRACT ARTICLE 311(2) OF CONSTITUTION:-

The discharge and reversal of an ad hoc appointee even after an employee has continued for any
length of time would not amount to a dismissal or reduction in rank so as to attract Article 311(2) of
the Constitution of India, unless it is shown that it was:
a) intended to be a measure of punishment,
b) the cast any stigma,
c) was otherwise malafide; or
d) it inflicts upon the delinquent civil consequences of a penal nature.

4
(1992)4 SCC 33
5
P. K. Majumdar and O. P. Tiwar, “Service Law in Indis”, 3rd ed, Orient Publishing Company, pg -189
Iv. Termination on the grounds of illegality:-
Termination on the ground of alleged illegality of the regularisation has been held to be bad. The
employee should be continued as ad hoc employees after the order of regularisation is revoked as
was done in respect of certain other similarly situated employee.

4. PROCEDURE FOR MAKING AD HOC APPOINTMENTS

The Executive is vested with power, subject of course, to a law made by the appropriate
Legislature, to make provisions for regulating the recruitment to public services. This power,
however, should be exercised fairly and ensuring a fair deal to every person consistent with the
requirements of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Further the State should not exploit its
employees nor should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the
unemployed persons or the employees as the case may be.
Even in making ad hoc appointments, the State must adopt some procedure consistent with the
requirement of Article 16, except in extraordinary situations where the appointments brook no
delay whatsoever. Appointments made by pick and choose method in an arbitrary manner
inconsistent with the requirement of Article 16 are liable to be quashed by the courts. It has been
emphasized that for making ad hoc appointments, person should ordinarily be drawn from the
Employment Exchange. In case no candidate is sponsored by the Employment Exchange, some
appropriate method consistent with Articles 14 and 16 should be followed6.

5. PROTECTION AVAILABLE TO AD HOC APPOINTEES

The ad hoc appointees are entitled to twin protections:

a) Minimum of pay scale;
b) Continuance till regular incumbents joins.
Article 14 and 16 to be complied with even in the case of stop-gap or ad hoc appointments. Where
the infringement of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India to be
considered for promotion is complained, it is no answer to say that because appointments were
made from time to time until the finalization of rules only on ad hoc basis, the eligible person had
no right to be considered for promotion. Whatever be the nature of appointment i.e. permanent,
temporary or ad hoc, a person eligible for promotion has a right to be considered 7.
6
Supra 8 pg 178
7
O. P. Gupta V. M. C. Delhi
 6. TERMINATION OF SERVICE
Termination of ad hoc employee at any time is inherent in the nature of service. In Hindustan
Petroleum corporation Ltd. V. Ashok Rangbha Ambre, the respondent was engaged by the
corporation in 1984, on casual basis, as an unskilled workman at its refinery at Bombay. In 1992,
he filed a writ petition in the High court by invoking Article 226, praying that he be declared as
permanent workman on the post of compounder/dressor w.e.f. June 6, 1987 in the corporation. It
appeared from the record that he was engaged purely on ad hoc basis without following proper
procedure of law and without there being any right in his favor. The services were terminated by
the corporation. But, the tribunal quashed the termination order. His name was never sponsored
by the Employment Exchange nor was an advertisement issued for the purpose of filling the post
to which the respondent was appointed. The appointment of the respondent was not found to be
legal and lawful. The apex court held that merely because in industrial adjudication, an order of
termination was quashed, the workman was not held to have substantive right to hold the post.
The court held him not entitled to be regularized as permanent employee.

In State of Mysore V. S.V. Narayanappa8, "the court stated that regularisation would not mean
that the appointment would have to be considered as permanent. It explained that the words
"regular" or "regularisation" did not connote "permanence".

In Sumati P.Shere V. Union of India 9, the Supreme Court emphasized that if services of an ad
hoc employee were to be discontinued on the grounds of unsuitability, it was proper and
necessary that he should be told in advance that his work and performance were not upto the
mark. The employee should be made aware of the defect in his work and deficiencies in his
performance. Timely communication of the defects might put the employee on the right track.
Without any such communication, the court ruled, it would be arbitrary to give a movement order
to the employee on the ground of unsuitability.

8
2008(2) SLR 321 (SC)
9
1967(!) SLR 128 (SC)
 7. REGULARISATION OF AD HOC EMPLOYEES

It has been often said that the State must be a model employer. It is for this reason, the courts
have emphasized that a person should not be kept in a temporary or ad hoc appointment status
for long. Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long, the court presumes that
there is a need and warrant for regular post. In that event the court may direct regularisation of ad
hoc employees.

In State of Haryana V. Piara Singh10, a large number of writ petitions, arising from both the states
of Punjab and Haryana, were heard together, by the Apex Court and a common judgment was
delivered, giving certain directions in the matter of regularisation of the ad hoc and other
temporary employees. The directions may be summarized as follows:
a) The court while giving directions for regularisation of ad hoc employees, must act with due care
and caution.
b) From the mere continuance of an ad hoc employee for one year, it cannot be presumed that
there is a need for a regular post.
c) There can be no rule of thumb in such matters. Conditions and circumstances of one unit may
not be the same as of the other.
d) The relief must be moulded in each case having regard to all the relevant facts and
circumstances of that case. It cannot be a mechanical act but a judicious one. The
conditions or rules relating to length of temporary/ad hoc service requisite for regularisation need
not be uniform in each state.
e) The employees must have possessed prescribed qualification at the time of ad hoc
appointment.
f) The condition that employee must have been sponsored by Employment Exchange would be
reasonable and wholesome requirement designed to curb back door entry.
g) The court cannot direct regularisation to help employees who could not satisfy the stipulated
conditions.
h) Exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be
made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc employee by a
regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete
along with others for such regular appointment/selection.
i) The appointment of a regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for
the sake of such an ad hoc employee.

10
AIR 1989 SC 1431
j) An ad hoc employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc employee; he must be replaced
by a regularly selected candidate.
k) Even where an ad hoc appointment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of the
administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the Employment Exchange unless it cannot
brook delay.
l) If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, some appropriate
method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed.
m) An unqualified person ought to be appointed only when qualified persons are not available
through the above processes.
n) If and when an ad hoc employee is regularized, he should be placed immediately below the last
regularly appointed employee in that category, class of service, as the case may be.

In Ashwani Kumar V. State of Bihar 11, the Apex Court held that the employees, whose entry in
service was illegal, being in total disregard of the recruitment rules or being not on existing
vacancies, had no case for regularisation. The court explained that the question of regularisation
in any service might arise in two contingencies. Firstly, if on any available clear vacancy which
was of a long duration, appointment was made on ad hoc basis, by a competent authority and the
appointee continued on ad hoc basis for a given substantial length of time with a pre-condition that
the initial entry of such an employee must be made against an available sanctioned vacancy by
following the rules and regulations governing such entry. The second type of situation would be
when the initial entry against an available vacancy was found to have suffered from some flaw in
the procedural exercise though the person appointing was competent to effect such initial
recruitment and had otherwise followed due procedure for such recruitment.
The Apex Court made it clear that the so-called regularisation and confirmation could not be relied
on as shields to cover up initial illegal and void actions or to perpetuate the corrupt methods of
making recruitment.

11
AIR 1997 SC 1628
 8. COUNTING OF AD HOC SERVICE TOWARDS SENIORITY
It has been stated that where an ad hoc appointment is continued for long, the court presumes
that there is need and warrant for regular post and accordingly the court directs regularisation of
service. On regularisation, the further question needs to be determined as to the counting of ad
hoc service towards seniority. The question has engaged the attention of the courts on many
occasions. In such cases the courts have considered the circumstances under which and the
manner in which the ad hoc appointment has been made.

In Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers Association V. State of Maharashtra 12, a Constitution
bench of the Supreme Court ruled that where the initial appointment was only ad hoc and not
according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post could not be
taken into account for considering the seniority.

9. BENEFIT OF SENIORITY, PROMOTION AND PENSION TO AD HOC

EMPLOYEES
An ad hoc appointee whose services have been regularized by the regularization rules framed
under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India after being duly selected by the selection
committee and becoming member of the services would be entitled to seniority. This would be
from the date of order of appointment after selection in accordance with the regulations. The
purely ad hoc employees or employees on purely officiating basis or employees purely for a
temporary employment period in the cadre being not members of the service in accordance with
the service rules are not entitled to have the benefit of their adventitious, purely ad hoc and
temporary service. Even appointments to temporary post would not be reckoned for determination
of seniority unless and until they become members of the services according to the provision of
the service rules.

In Nasib Singh V. State of Punjab13, the court held that the entire service shall be counted for the
period of pension, if a temporary or ad hoc service is followed.

In K. Madalaimuthu V. State of Tamil Nadu 14, the court held that the seniority of a person
appointed temporarily to a particular post without recourse to the Recruitment Rules can be
counted only from the date on which his services are regularized.

12
AIR 1990 SC 1607
13
1999 (5) SLR 497 (P. & H.)
14
(2006) 6 SCC 558
 10. BIBLIOGRAPHY

 D.P.Tiwari, R.K. Majumdar. Service Laws in India. New Delhi: Orient Publishing Company.
 Doabia, Justice T.S. The Law of Services and Dismissals. Nagpur: Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, 2011.
 Kumar, Prof. Narender. Law relating to Government Servants & Management of Disciplianry
Proceedings. faridabad: allahabad law agency, 2008.
 https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/apex-court-sets-guidelines-to-curb-ad-hoc-
appointments/ (Visited on8TH March, 2024)
 www.indiankanoon.com