Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to count seniority from their initial temporary appointments in 1972 instead of from their regular appointments made after selection by the Public Service Commission.
Analysis: The appointments made in 1972 were expressly temporary and pending regular selection by the Public Service Commission. Under Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, appointments to the posts required consultation with the Commission, and Regulation 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (Limitation on Functions) Regulations, 1957 did not apply because the posts were not confined to a six-month tenure. The later regular selection by the Commission brought the appointments within the governing seniority rule, and Rule 12(a)(i) treated seniority as running from the date of selection by the Commission where consultation was required. Regularisation of an irregular or stop-gap appointment does not confer a right to count the earlier period for seniority.
Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to seniority from the date of their initial temporary appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an initial appointment is made only as a temporary stop-gap arrangement pending regular selection through the constitutionally or statutorily required consultative process, seniority is governed by the date of regular selection and not by the earlier ad hoc appointment.