Tag Archives: Mode of Appointment

Recruitment, Advertisement, Selection and Appointment

“Recruitment”, “Advertisement”, “Selection” and “Appointment” are different concepts under the service jurisprudence. “Recruitment” is the process of generating a pool of capable people to apply for employment in organization. Selection forms integral part of recruitment process, wherein from amongst eligible candidates, choice is made of person or persons capable to do the job as per the requirement. The process of selection begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the preparation of select list for appointment. “Appointment” is made, after selection process is over, issuance of letter in favour of selected candidates, is an offer to selected candidate to accept the office or position to which he has been selected. On acceptance of the terms and conditions of appointment, the selected candidates on joining has to be accepted as appointed. Ravi Raj v. State of U.P., Writ – A No. – 26584 of 2011, decided on February 7, 2020

Leave a comment

Filed under Advertisement

“Ad Hoc Appointment and “Officiating Appointment” – Distinction Between

In P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Adcanced Law Lexicon (4th Edition) the phrase “Ad hoc Appointment” is described as temporary appointment made without selection of the candidate by any of the methods of recruitment provided under the relevant service rules or any orders of the Government where no service rules exist and otherwise than on the recommendations of the Commission if the post is in its purview. The treatise goes on to state that ad hoc appointment is made as a stop gap arrangement to carry on the Governmental work before the regular selection is made. “Officiating appointment” has been described in the aforesaid treatise as an appointment, not made substantively, which is temporary until further arrangements are made for filling the post permanently. “Officiating Service” has been described therein as service rendered as a non-permanent holder. There is a common thread in both types of appointment which is that both appointments are temporary made to serve a purpose. The discernible difference between the two is that in a case of officiating appointment, ordinarily, a post exists from before whereas in a case of ad hoc appointment it is not necessary that a post may exist from before because an ad hoc appointment may be made by way of an arrangement  to serve a purpose/exigency that may have arisen. Dr. Madan Gopal Pandey v. State of U.P., 2018 (6) AWC 6264.

Leave a comment

Filed under Ad Hoc Appointment and Officiating Appointment

Parity in Pay Scales – Equation of Posts

Granting parity in pay scales depends upon the comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts, it was held in SAIL v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya, (2011) 11 SCC 122,  as under:

“the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that parity of pay can be claimed by invoking the provisions of Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India by establishing that the eligibility, mode of selection/recruitment, nature and quality of work and duties and effort, reliability, confidentiality, dexterity, functional need and responsibilities and status of both the posts are identical. The functions may be the same but the skills and responsibilities may be really and substantially different. The other post may not require any higher qualification, seniority or other like factors. Granting parity in pay scales depends upon the comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts. The person claiming parity must plead necessary averments and prove that all things are equal between the posts concerned. Such a complex issue cannot be adjudicated by evaluating the affidavits filed by the parties.”

 It was held in Union of India v. P.K. Roy, AIR 1968 SC 850 that the following factors had been held to be determinative for considering the equation of posts,:

1. The nature and duties of a post;

2. The responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;

3. The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and

4. The salary of the post.

After referring to Union of India v. P.K. Roy, AIR 1968 SC 850,  the Hon’ble Apex Court, in  SAIL v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya, (2011) 11 SCC 122, held as under:

25. In  State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni, (1981) 4 SCC 130 and  L.N. Mithila University v. Dayanand Jha, (1986) 3 SCC 7, a similar view has been reiterated observing that equal status and nature and responsibilities of the duties attached to the two posts have to be taken into consideration for equivalence of the post. Similar view has been reiterated in  E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, (2000) 1 SCC 644, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court following the earlier judgment in  Union of India v. P.K. Roy, AIR 1968 SC 850 held that the salary of the post alone may not be a determining factor, the other three criteria should also be fulfilled.” Punjab SEB v. Thana Singh, (2019) 4 SCC 113.

Leave a comment

Filed under Employment Law, Parity in Pay Scales