Granting Bail Does Not Shield Foreign Nationals from Executive Action on Visa Violations: Delhi High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Misused to Resolve Substantive Disputes or Replace Execution Mechanisms: P&H High Court Eviction Proceedings Must Follow Principles of Natural Justice: Telangana High Court Quashes Eviction Order under Senior Citizens Act Limitation Law | Sufficient Cause Cannot Be Liberally Interpreted If Negligence or Inaction Is Apparent: Gujarat High Court Mere Pendency of Lease Renewal Requests Does Not Constitute Bona Fide Dispute: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Proceedings Under Public Premises Act CGST | Declaratory Nature of Safari Retreats Ruling Mandates Reassessment of Input Tax Credit Claims: Kerala High Court Changing Rules of the Game Mid-Way Violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: Rajasthan High Court Disapproval of a Relationship Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Without Direct Instigation or Mens Rea: Supreme Court Limitation Period Under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act Cannot Defeat Victim’s Right to Compensation: Gujarat High Court Maintenance To Wife Cannot Be a Precondition for Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 438 CrPC Court Cannot Rewrite Contract When Vendor Lacks Ownership of the Property: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Appeal for Specific Performance Royalty Can Be Levied on Minor Minerals Like Brick Earth, Irrespective of Land Ownership: Supreme Court Bail in Heinous Crimes Must Be Granted with Adequate Reasons and Judicial Scrutiny: Supreme Court Judicial Review in Disciplinary Cases Is Limited to Fairness, Not Reappreciation of Evidence: Supreme Court Prolonged Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Criminalized as Rape on False Promise of Marriage: Madras High Court No Interference in Judgments Without Perversity or Legal Error Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh HC

Delhi High Court: Ad Hoc Appointees’ Regularization in Election Commission Upheld

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, delivered a landmark judgment upholding the regularization of ad hoc appointees in the Election Commission of India (ECI). The court dismissed the challenge brought forth by direct recruits, affirming the validity of the regularization process undertaken prior to the appointment of direct recruits.

Delhi High Court held that the regularisation of ad hoc appointees as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) in the Election Commission of India was undertaken much before the appointment of direct recruits. The court emphasized that the direct recruits had no locus standi to challenge the regularization process, as they were appointed long after the regularization of ad hoc appointees.

The court further cited Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules, stating that the regularisation of ad hoc appointees was valid as it was done in accordance with Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules, which permits relaxation by the Central Government.” The decision to regularize the ad hoc appointees was justified due to special circumstances, and the appointees possessed the necessary qualifications for the LDC post.

Regarding the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court observed that “the relief sought by the direct recruits, challenging the regularisation of ad hoc appointees and setting aside the seniority list, cannot be granted after such a long time and without any interference in the regularisation process.”

Delhi High court upheld the validity of the seniority list dated June 11, 2004, and emphasized that the seniority of the ad hoc appointees should be determined from the date of regularisation/regular appointment, which was between 1993-1996, predating the appointment of direct recruits in 1998-1999.

Date of Decision: July 24, 2023

BASANT KUMAR & ORS. vs  ELECTION COMMISSOIN OF INDIA    

 

Similar News