Dr. Shyam Sunder Singh Bhadoriya vs State of M.P. and Another

Sujoy Paul, J.—In this petition, the petitioner has prayed that he be placed in the gradation list in between serial No. 328 and 329. In nutshell, the case of petitioner is that he was appointed on ad hoc basis on 14-01-1988. This appointment was in accordance with rules and he was selected pursuant to the advertisement and therefore, this ad hoc appointment cannot be treated as dehors the rules. On 03-08-1988 petitioner was regularly appointed on substantive post pursuant to his selection through PSC. PSC initiated its recruitment process in February, 1988. Thus, relying on The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers'' Association and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, , State of W.B. and Others Vs. Aghore Nath Dey and Others, and T. Vijayan and Others Vs. Div. Railway Manager and Others, it is contended that ad hoc services rendered by the petitioner should be treated for the purpose of counting his seniority.

The same is opposed by the other side on the ground that other similarly situated employee against same seniority list approached this Court and his writ petition was rejected which has been confirmed by the Division Bench.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that Dr. Brij Kishore Sharma filed the writ petition No. 7380/2003 which has been dismissed by this Court on 15-02-2007. The said officer also claimed counting of ad hoc services for seniority and is similarly situated to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the said order of Writ Court has got the stamp of approval in Writ Appeal No. 396/2007 on 18-02-2008.

Thus, the point involved in the present mater is already considered and decided by this Court. Petitioner has claimed seniority at a particular position in the gradation list but has not chosen to implead any affected persons. The impleadment of such persons was necessary and in absence thereof this petition cannot be entertained. This view is taken by the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Kaul and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, On the basis of aforesaid reasons, I find no justification to take a different view. Court should not create a situation where similarly situated persons are governed by two different principles. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere in this petition, hence it is dismissed. No costs.