– From the perspective of some of the best Advocates for Service Matters in Chandigarh
The ad hoc employees basically stand at the lowest grade as against a permanent, quasi-permanent and temporary employee. It has been held that an ad hoc employee does not get the right to hold the post or to continue in employment endlessly in comparison to a regular employee. The ad hoc employees are said to form a different class.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Faculty Association P.G.I. v Union of India, has held that the ad hoc appointees have no right to claim regularisation of their services. However, they are entitled to be considered along with other eligible candidates.
Again, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in V.J. Balready v Andhra Bank, ruled that when an ad hoc appointment was made for a particular time and not in accordance with the recommended rules,¬†being merely a stop-gap arrangement, the appointees had no right to call continuance in service after the expiry of the period of appointment.
Being a stop-gap agreement, an ad hoc appointment does not automatically give any vested right to the appointee to claim continuity in service till it is regularised. It is only transitory in nature pending the allocation of employees selected according to the laid rules and regulations.
RIGHTS OF AN AD HOC APPOINTEE
The rights of an ad hoc appointee may be stated as under:
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, it was held that where the appointment is purely on ad hoc basis and is contractual and any discharge 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 create any right 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 nominal 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 risky tenure nevertheless carries a limited right to that extent and if such an appointee is returned illegally and arbitrarily, he would be entitled to challenge it and seek enforcement of his right.
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.
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:
- intended to be a measure of punishment,
- to cast any stigma,
- was otherwise malafide; or
- it inflicts upon the delinquent civil consequences of a penal nature.
TERMINATION ON THE GROUND OF ALLEGED ILLEGALITY¬†of the regularization has been held to be bad. The employee should be continued as ad hoc employees after the order of regularization is dismissed as was done in respect of certain other similarly situated employee.
PROTECTION AVAILABLE TO AD HOC APPOINTEES
The ad hoc appointees are entitled to twin protections:
- Minimum of pay-scale;
- Continuance till regular incumbents join.
Article 14 and 16 to be complied with even in the case of stop-gap or ad hoc appointments.
The fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India is to be considered for promotion matters, it cannot be said 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.
 Saroj Kumari v State of Punjab, 1998 (5) SLR (P. & H.) 266.
 1995 (5) SLR (P. & H.) 682.
 1997 (6) SLR (A. P.) 734.
 Dr. Smt Sunanda Satya v University of Rajasthan, 1991 (1) SLR (Raj.) 659.
 Prabhat Kumar Sharma v State of U. P., AIR 1996 SC 2638.
 Supra 3 pg- 756
 (1992)4 SCC 33
 P.K. Majumdar and O.P. Tiwari, ‚ÄúService Laws in India‚ÄĚ, 3rd ed, Orient Publishing Company, pg-189
 Supra 3 pg-757
 O.P. Gupta V. M.C. Delhi, 1973(1) SLR 209