Common Order on Interim Relief

OA No.181/224/2020 and OA No.181/225/2020

     The applicants in both these OAs are Principals appointed on ad-hoc basis as per Annexure A4. They were appointed on an ad-hoc basis to the post of Principals, as the posts of Headmasters were upgraded and a new post of Principal was created. According to the counsel for the applicants, the respondents had prepared a draft Recruitment Rules in 2011 and it is on the basis of the said rules, promotions were given. Applicants herein were working as Principals for the last 9 years. The respondents on 1.6.2020 had issued an order Annexure A1 reverting the applicants, stating that as per DoPT OM No.28036/1/2012-Estt(D) dated 3.4.2013, continuance of such ad-hoc appointment cannot be permitted. According to the counsel for the applicants, the order of R2 is unwarranted and arbitrary and it was issued without even giving an opportunity to be heard. So, the applicants seek an interim stay on Annexure A1 & A2 orders.

   The respondents appeared through their counsel and submits that ad-hoc appointment cannot be continued beyond a period of one year and the continuance of the applicants is against the OM dated 3.4.2013. The applicants cannot claim any right to continue in their posts.

     We had heard both sides and perused the pleadings. If we go through Annexure A4, it can be seen that the applicants were appointed on the basis of a draft Recruitment Rules pending approval. This was necessitated due to the upgradation of the post of Headmaster to the post of Principal. So, in order to fill the post, the Administration, expecting approval of the draft Recruitment Rules, promoted 9 persons as Principal, following the procedure prescribed in the Recruitment Rules.

    The applicants continued to work as Principals for 9 years and in 2020, the respondents had reverted the applicants, stating that ad-hoc appointment cannot be continued beyond a period of one year as per OM dated 3.4.2013. We had gone through the OM dated 3.4.2013. The DoPT had issued OM dated 3.4.2013 stating that ad-hoc appointments/promotions should be restricted to the bare minimum and if ad-hoc promotion/appointment has to be continued, the Department should address the proposal for extension at least 2 months prior to the ending of the period.

The OM directs “All the administrative Ministries/Departments are requested to review the ad-hoc appointments/promotions made by them, from time to time, and at least once a year, on the basis of the guidelines and instructions in force, so as to bring down the instances of such ad-hoc manpower arrangements to the barest minimum, in respect of both Secretariat as well as non-Secretariat offices under them”.

     As per the reply given, it is seen that the R2 had not taken any steps to get the extension of the applicants in time and 9 years had elapsed. On a reading of Annexure A1 para 2, R2 had reverted the applicants even without giving a notice for hearing. It was the duty of R2 to take up the matter for extension of adhoc appointments in time. The mistake or illegality, prima facie, lies on R2 in not addressing the matter to DoPT for approval. No proper review as to whether ad-hoc appointments given to the applicants is necessary and no finding can be seen in the order as to why R2 had decided to revert the applicants who were working as Principals in various schools. There is no case that a new Recruitment Rules has come into force or there is any irregularity in the above appointments.

     The applicants had made a prima facie case in their favour and the balance of convenience is in their continuance as Principals until further orders.

      Accordingly we hereby stay the operation of Annexure A1 & A2 orders with immediate effect.

      The respondents will restore the status quo ante of the applicants immediately.

      Post the matter for further hearing on 6.10.2020.

      Issue a copy of this order to the counsel for the parties.