Union Of India Through The Secretary And ORS. v. Shri. Samir Kumar Das

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE HON'BLE JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY WP.CT/49/2025 Union of India Through The Secretary and others ... Petitioners

Versus

Shri Samir Kumar Das ... Respondent For the petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar For the respondent : Mr. Rajinder Singh Heard on : 29.01.2026 Judgment on : 10.02.2026 APURBA SINHA RAY, J.

1.

An order dated July 18, 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Circuit Bench at Port Blair is under challenge in this writ petition. 2.

Learned counsel Mr. Rakesh Kumar appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent Shri Samir Kumar Das was initially appointed as a Primary School Teacher (PST) (Hindi Medium) on purely ad-hoc basis with the condition that by virtue of his ad-hoc appointment he shall have no claim whatsoever in future for appointment to the post against which such ad-hoc appointment is being made and such appointment

shall not bestow upon him any right for future appointment. Subsequently such ad-hoc appointment of the respondent was extended from time to time. The Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor , Andaman & Nicobar Islands, approved a policy decision by order dated 17.05.2005, wherein it was decided that a humane view should be taken in respect of the particular category of teachers who had served the Administration on contract/ad-hoc basis in various grades against sanctioned posts for two to five years at the time of need and presently out of job and they were to be recruited against the existing/future vacancies under direct recruitments category as a onetime measure with immediate effect. All such recruitments shall be considered as fresh recruitment and candidates should have no claim whatsoever on the services earlier rendered. Mr.

Kumar has further submitted that by virtue of the above policy decision of the UT Administration, the respondent was freshly appointed on regular basis to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher along with others on condition that their appointment in the post shall be treated as fresh appointment and they should have no claim whatsoever on the services earlier rendered. 3.

Mr. Kumar has categorically stated that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the ratio decidendi of the case law of Shri. Parimal Halder in its proper perspective. According

to him Shri. Parimal Halder was appointed and continued in the post of Physical Education Teacher on an ad-hoc basis until he was subsequently appointed afresh to the same cadre through the Departmental Selection Committee. Whereas the respondent herein was initially appointed as a Primary School Teacher on an ad-hoc basis and was letter appointed as a Graduate Trained Teacher in accordance with a policy decision taken by the Administration. The factual and procedural distinctions between the two cases render the comparison untenable. Similar is the case of Smti. P.T.Elezabeth who was appointed as Graduate Trained Teacher on ad-hoc basis without mentioning any specific tenure but with the rider that this engagement is purely on ad-hoc basis and the applicant will not claim regular appointment against the post in the cadre of GTT.

As such, she had continued in the post of GTT on an ad-hoc basis without any break. Therefore the ad-hoc service of Smti. P.T. Elizabeth was eventually regularised and she was absorbed in the department without involvement of any fresh recruitment process.

appointment order of the instant applicant, because, the appointment order of Peter Kannedy and others was not at all in terms of any policy decision of the UT Administration taken vide order No. 2145 dated 17.05.2005.

4.

Mr. Kumar concluded by saying that the respondent's regular appointment as a Graduate Trained Teacher emanated from a policy decision of the Administration. Such policy, being a codified framework of norms and principles, is required to be implemented in its entirety and with uniformity. Any deviation or selective application thereof would amount to a violation of the policy itself and defeat the purpose and object for which it was conceived. Regularisation of the respondent's ad-hoc service shall be in violation of the explicit provisions of the policy under which he was provided regular appointment and the terms of his appointment order dated 08.09.2008.

5.

The learned Tribunal, according to Mr. Kumar, has gravely erred in law and on facts in directing regularisation of the respondent's ad-hoc service, ignoring the settled position of law that ad-hoc, temporary or stop-gap appointments do not confer any vested or enforceable right to regularisation, particularly when such appointments are made dehors the Recruitment Rules and without following the prescribed selection procedure. According to Mr. Kumar the judicial

pronouncement cannot override, supplant or run contrary to statutory provisions, Recruitment Rules or valid administrative instructions having force of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu (2011) 7 SCC 397, State of UP vs. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309, and Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, has categorically held that courts and tribunals cannot issue directions in violation of statutory rules or administrative policy. In the case in hand the learned Tribunal has committed a jurisdictional error in directing regularisation of the respondent's ad-hoc service from 09.08.1999 to 08.09.

2008 despite the admitted fact that the respondent was regularly appointed subsequently under a distinct one-time policy, which cannot retrospectively validate or regularise prior ad-hoc service rendered in violation of the Recruitment Rules. The impugned order suffers from non application of judicial mind as the learned tribunal overlooked that the respondent's ad-hoc engagement was purely a stop-gap arrangement and not against a sanctioned post filled through a competitive process, rendering the direction for regularisation wholly unsustainable in law.

6.

Lastly Mr. Kumar has submitted that the learned Tribunal further erred in ignoring the wider administrative

ramifications inasmuch as a large number of similarly placed ad-hoc employees are working in the Department of Education and other departments of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, and granting such undue benefit to the respondent alone would result in hostile discrimination, administrative chaos, and opening of floodgates for litigation. The impugned order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal being contrary to law, violative of constitutional principles is liable to be set aside and quashed. 7.

The learned counsel for the respondent has categorically challenged the submission of the learned counsel of the writ petitioner. According to him the respondent was appointed as Primary School Teacher on ad-hoc basis against a sanctioned post in a regular pay scale. The respondent was appointed as Graduate Trained Teacher vide order No. 4414 dated 08.09.2008 and was relieved from the post of PST in the afternoon of 15.09.2008 by the Principal Government Middle School with the direction to report for duty to the Head Master Government Senior Secondary School.

The respondent continued in service without break till 15.09.2008. The administration subsequently issued a general Memorandum/ policy decision inviting applications from eligible employees for regularisation of past continuous ad-hoc service.

The

respondent submitted his claim strictly in accordance with and pursuant to the said Memorandum. Despite receipt of the respondent's claim, no order-either allowing or rejecting the claim-was passed by the Administration. Aggrieved by the prolonged inaction and non-consideration of his claim, the respondent was constrained to approach the learned Tribunal by filing an Original Application. Upon consideration of the pleadings and material on record, the learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application. The fact that the respondent was appointed as Primary School Teacher (PST) on ad-hoc basis against a sanctioned post in a regular pay scale clearly distinguishes the present case from purely stop-gap or casual engagements.

The nature of appointment, though ad-hoc, carried all indicia of regular service except formal regularization, thereby attracting constitutional scrutiny once a regularisation policy was framed. The appointment of the respondent as Graduate Trained Teacher (GTT) followed by his release from the post of PST on 15.09.2008 with a direction to report to the new place of posting, establishes that the transition from PST to GTT was administrative and seamless, without any break in service or severance of employer-employee relationship. The admitted fact that the respondent continued in service without any break till 15.09.

any contention that the respondent's earlier service stood extinguished upon appointment as GTT.

8.

Learned counsel has further submitted issuance of a general Memorandum / policy decision by the Administration inviting applications for regularisation of past continuous adhoc service constitutes a conscious policy of choice by the employer. Once such a policy was framed, the Administration was bound to apply it in a fair, uniform and non-arbitrary manner. It is also argued that the respondent having submitted his claim strictly in accordance with the said Memorandum fulfilled all procedural and substantive requirements prescribed by the Administration itself, thereby entitling him to a reasoned decision on merits. The failure of the Administration to pass any order, amounts to administrative inaction, which in law is equivalent to arbitrariness. Such silence defeats the very purpose of the policy and violates the principles of fair play and natural justice.

9.

In concluding his submission the learned counsel has categorically said that the respondent was left with no efficacious alternative remedy and rightly approached the learned Tribunal for redressal of his grievance and upon due consideration of all material available on record the learned Tribunal rightly allowed the original application thereby

correcting the administrative arbitrariness and enforcing the obligation of the State to act fairly and reasonably. The order does not confer any undue benefit but merely ensures that a claim invited under a declared policy is decided lawfully, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Court's View :

10.

In the world of Education an ad-hoc teacher is someone hired for a specific, temporary purpose or to fill an immediate, short term need. The term comes from the Latin phrase 'ad-hoc' which literally translates to 'for this' or 'for this specific purpose'. Unlike permanent faculty, ad-hoc appointments usually have the following traits:

Firstly, it is of temporary duration. Such teachers are hired for a fixed period, for example, one semester or one academic year rather than having a permanent contract. Secondly, there must be a specific purpose. They might be brought in to cover a sudden vacancy, a leave of absence or an unexpected surge in student enrolment.

Thirdly, it is mainly on a contractual basis. They are generally paid on a per lecture or fixed contract basis, often without the full benefits given to permanent staff. Fourthly, there is no guarantee of renewal. Once the specific need is met or the contract ends the position

typically expires unless the school/department decides to issue a new contract.

11.

From the above it is clear that ad-hoc appointment means or implies a short term appointment. If we go through the materials on record we shall find that the respondent was appointed in the post of Primary School Teacher on the basis of an advertisement published in the Daily Telegrams on July, 09, 1997 against sanctioned vacancies. The record further shows that a merit list of candidates after their interview was published and the respondent was selected for the post of Primary School Teacher (Hindi Medium) along with others. By order No. 370 dated 01.02.1999 the respondent was engaged as a Primary School Teacher on ad-hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-125-7000 plus usual allowances as admissible under the rules. It is further found that subsequently by order dated 09.08.1999 the petitioner along with others was again appointed in the same pay scale for six months up to 31.01.2000. It is also on record that order No. 531 dated 07.02.2000 was passed by the Director of Education in the following Manner:

"In continuation of this Directorate's Order No: 3823 dated 9th August, 1999, the Adhoc appointment of the following Primary School Teacher's are hereby extended for a further period of three months with effect from 1-2-2000 to 30-4-2000. This is in compliance with the solemn order dated 27-1-2000 of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal."

12.

Thereafter by order No. 2107 dated 2nd May, 2000 the Director of Education issued the following order: "Order No. 2107 In obedience of the solemn order of Hon'ble Tribunal dated 233-2000 in OA.No.1/AN/2000 (vs vs Bindu and others) and OA.No.:2/AN/2000(vs Samir Kumar Das and others), the Director of Education is pleased to order extension of adhoc appointment of the Candidates named below until further orders. Miss V S Bindu PST (Adhoc) PS Cylon Basthi, L/A Miss K Rahalakshmy PST (Adhoc) PS RK Pur, Ward No.4 Miss MS Ramla PST (Adhoc) PS Nanjappa Nagar Shri P Thrumalai PST (Adhoc) PS VK Pur, Ward No.16 Shri Samir Kumar Das PST (Adhoc) HS Strait Island Shri Kishori Toppo PST (Adhoc) PS Ganna Dabla Miss K Lakshmi Bhawani PST (Adhoc) PS Shoal Bay-19 Miss R. Jyothi PST (Adhoc) PS Kalipahar Smti Razia Khatoon PST (Adhoc) PS Havelock Jetty Miss Zubaida PST (Adhoc) PS Chuglumgam, N/B Director of Education (F.No.2-1/Edn/Estt/PF/2000)"

13.

From the above it is found that from 2nd May, 2000 till his joining as Graduate Trained Teacher he rendered continuous services to the department as Primary School Teacher. The record further shows that the respondent was transferred from time to time in several government schools. All the above materials on records show that although respondent Samir Kumar Das was described as an ad-hoc teacher, but actually the nature of ad-hoc service had already evaporated by passage of time. What I want to mean is that the very nature of ad-hoc service implies short term tenure. But in the case of the respondent it reveals that he gave continuous service of at least

more than eight years as Primary School Teacher. Moreover, it is not that he was given a consolidated amount of remuneration rather he was paid in accordance with a pay scale along with other admissible allowances. He was transferred to various schools on a number of occasions. Therefore, it can be said that although the respondent was designated as ad-hoc Primary School Teacher, in fact, the Administration compelled him to render the services of a regular Primary School Teacher of a sanctioned vacancy for years together. The role of a State employer should be a model one. It is not at all expected from a model employer that he will engage someone as an ad-hoc employee, and compel him or her to take the load of a regular employee for a long continuous period without regularising his/her ad-hoc service.

14.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar has argued that the Primary School Teacher cadre is different from the cadre of Graduate Trained Teachers. On this score he has distinguished the case of the respondent from those of Shri. Primal Halder (Supra), Smt. P.T.Elezabeth (Supra), Shri Peter Kannedy (Supra). Such distinction as advocated by Mr. Kumar is very cryptic and does not support his case also. Why I say this can be ascertained from several letters issued by the Administration. In this regard

I would like to refer to the circular dated 5th March, 2008 of the Assistant Director (Admin):

"To, The All DDOs /Principal Sub: Furnishing of relevant information in connection with the continuous adhoc-services- regarding Sir, I am directed to request that the details of continuous adhoc-service without break of Teacher, Librarian, Craft Instructor, Lab. Assistant working under your kind control may please be furnished in the given format along with the representation of the concerned incumbents supported by availed documents who wish to regularize their adhocservices. ... ... ..." 15.

From the above it is found that the circular dated 05.03.2008 was issued to all DDOs asking them to provide details of the teachers etc who wished to regularise their 'ad-hoc services'. Therefore, by letter dated 5th March, 2008 the Administration had already expressed its desire to regularise ad-hoc services of the Teachers, Librarian etc who rendered continuous ad-hoc service without break and it is found that the respondent had also submitted the relevant format through proper channel. In my view by circular dated 05th March, 2008 along with other circulars of similar nature the Authority had already expressed its desire to regularise ad-hoc services of the Teachers, Librarians etc. who rendered continuous ad-hoc services without break. The initial condition that the employee will not claim for future employment has been given a go bye by the administration itself.

16.

As I have already mentioned that Administration had obtained continuous service from the respondent for a considerable period of time ranging more than eight years I cannot hold that the respondent can be designated as ad-hoc Teacher in actual sense. Since in my view the nature of ad-hoc services has been wiped off due to eight years of long continuous services on the part of respondent who was on a pay scale with annual increments and admissible allowances, and also due to the fact that the petitioner was also subjected to transfer to different Government schools on several occasions, akin to a regular teacher of a Government school. 17.

Another important aspect of the respondent's PST service is the relieving order dated 15.09.2008 which is as follows: "Relieving Order No.20 Consequent on his appointment as GTT (Hum) and posted to Govt. Secondary School, Karmatang vide Director of Ecudaiton's Orders No. 4414 dated 8th September, 2008, Shri Samir Kumar Das PST is hereby relieved of his duties with effect from the afternoon of 15th September, 2008.

He is directed to report for duty to the Head Master, Govt. Secondary School, Karmatang with immediate effect. He has 11(eleven) days Casual leave in his credit." 18.

From the above it reveals that the respondent was relieved from his duty as Primary School Teacher by making an office order with a direction upon him to join his new assignment as Graduate Trained Teacher with immediate effect. Such relieving order is also akin to a regular employee's transfer and

consequent order relieving him from his present duty and thereby facilitating him to join a new assignment. 19.

Therefore all the indicia of a regular employee are present in the case of the respondent, and these are sufficient to show that the case of respondent is different from the factual matrix of the case laws cited by Mr. Kumar. The decision in the Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs Umadevi (3) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 was drawn to the attention of this Court. It appears that the said decision deprecates the irregular and illegal appointments in government services in which employees are employed without going through a recruitment process.

In Union of India and another vs Arulmozhi Iniarasu and others reported in (2011) 7 SCC 397, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that the engagement of respondents as casual labours even for considerably long duration did not confer any legal right on them for seeking a mandamus for relaxation of age limit. In the case law reported in (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of U.P.and others vs. Harish Chandra and others, the Supreme Court has dealt with an issue regarding recruitment after expiry of panel and select list and ultimately it was held that such recruitment cannot be directed by the High Court.

be issued, either to refrain from enforcing the law or to act contrary to the law.

20.

In our case it is found that there are several aspects which make the present case of the respondent different from the said cited decisions on the part of the Administration and they are as follows:- i.

Initial recruitment in the post of Primary School Teacher was advertised in the Newspaper.

ii.

In such advertisements applications were invited in respect of vacant sanctioned posts of Primary School Teacher.

iii.

Interviews of candidates took place.

iv.

The respondent was selected after such an interview, v.

The merit list and selection list were published. vi.

Initially the appointment was for a specific period of time.

vii.

Respondent was given a fixed pay scale with annual increments and other admissible allowances.

viii. Subsequently, the respondent rendered continuous service for more than eight years as Primary School Teacher.

ix.

He was subjected to transfer to different government schools on several occasions.

x.

Regularisation of his ad-hoc service along with others was initiated by the Administration on certain conditions.

xi.

The Administration accepted the eligibility of the respondent with regard to the relevant policy decision of the Administration.

xii.

The Respondent was allowed to join the post of Graduate Trained Teacher by the Administration. xiii. Respondent joined as Graduate Trained Teacher after receiving due relieving order from the DDOs/Head of institutions of his last assignment as Primary School Teacher.

xiv. Joining of the respondent from post of ad-hoc Primary School Teacher to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher appears to be continuous.

21.

From the above it transpires that the service of the respondent from 02nd May, 2000 till date partakes the character of a regular service. In this regard we have taken into consideration the order No. 2017 dated 2nd May, 2000 issued by Director of Education and Subsequent orders and the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parimal Halder's case

(Supra). All the indicia of a regular service are available in this case and this factual matrix puts the respondent on a different pedestal not envisaged in the cited decisions from the side of the Administration. The Administration is therefore under an obligation to regularise the period of ad-hoc service of the respondent from their initial date of appointment as ad-hoc Primary School Teacher in view of observation of the Apex Court in Parimal Halder's Case, without any further delay. 22.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar has also submitted that if the respondent's service is allowed to be regularised, it will open floodgates for litigations and there would be a serious Administrative chaos. In our view, If the Administration fails to extend sympathy to its own employees and subjects them to take the load of employees of regular service and to keep them as ad-hoc employees, it is difficult for this Court to extend similar sympathy towards the employer who does not appear to be a model employer particularly in these types of cases. 23.

After considering the materials on record and the impugned judgement passed by the learned Tribunal, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the said judgement of the learned Tribunal passed on July 18, 2005 in connection with OA No. AN/351/1251/2017.

24.

In view of the above discussion we are constrained to dismiss the writ petition and accordingly we do so. 25.

WP.CT/49/2025 is dismissed. No order as to costs. 26.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, may be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

(APURBA SINHA RAY, J.) I agree.

(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)