Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

308
Ad hoc / stop-gap service beyond six months require P.S.C consent, Government cannot regularize
the period without consultation.
45. In our view, the High Court was right to the extent it held that the rules did not permit continuance
of the ad hoc/ stop gap promotion beyond six months and the Government could not have continued
the ad hoc/stop gap promotion till regularization without consulting the Commission. This is clear from
regulation 4(d (ii) already referred to. The High Court was also right in holding that the Government
could not have also passed any orders such as the one dated 2-1-98 of regularization of the entire ad
hoc service without consulting the Commission.
Regularisation of ad hoc/stop gap service under Rule 23 : The contention of direct recruits and the
High Court’s view :
Jammu & Kashmir PSC
46. Here, two important findings given by the High Court have to be referred to. The High Court
at one stage observed as follows : “ if the exercise of selection of candidates has not been done by the
Commission for regularisation of ad hoc promotees for substantive promotions, in that event, without
consultation of the Commission, the regularization of ad hoc promotions is in violation of Regulation
4(d) (ii) framed under the constitutional provision contained in Section 133 of the Constitution of
Jammu and Kashmir. This would mean that the High Court in a way accepted that services of such
promotees could be regularized if the Service Commission was consulted.
47. But the High Court again stated at a later stage that the ad hoc/stop gap service rendered by
promotees could not be regularized and for that proposition it relied upon several rulings of this Court.
But those decisions, as we shall show a little later were cases where it was held that a direct recruit
could not count his ad hoc service rendered prior to the date of selection. Those rulings cannot be
applied, as shown below, to the cases of promotees for holding that ad hoc/stop gap service of the
promotees could not be regularized. If the High Court meant that such service could not be regularized
under Rule 23 – at least to the extent when vacancies arose in the promotee quota, subject to eligibility
and suitability of the promotees based on ACRs etc. – we are of the opinion, for reasons to be given
below, that the said view of the High Court is wrong and runs counter to overwhelming authority of this
court that such service of promotees could be regularized in the posts relatable to the promotee quota
provided the PSC/DPC was consulted and subject to eligibility etc.