IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

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    

 

Latest Legal News