Tender Age Doctrine Dictates Custody Must Ordinarily Rest With Mother For Child's Holistic Development: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | Newspaper Publication Confers Deemed Notice; Candidates Cannot Cite Rural Residence To Seek Belated Recruitment Applications: Calcutta High Court Proving Ownership Does Not Establish Jural Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant: Madras High Court Rules 1998 Overrules 1983 Guidelines; Selection Process For Principals Cannot Be Challenged By Unsuccessful Candidates Who Participated Without Demur: Allahabad High Court Panjab University Is An Inter-State Body Under S.72 Punjab Reorganisation Act, UGC Regulations Enhancing Superannuation Age To 65 Inapplicable Without Central Govt Sanction Under S.31 PU Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Police Enquiry Reports Do Not Bind Magistrate In S. 200 Private Complaint, Inquest Statements Under S. 174 Cannot Warrant Quashing Murder Summons: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 197 CrPC | Special Court Cannot Mechanically Treat Protest Petition As Complaint Without Reasoned Judicial Order: Allahabad High Court 'Errant Developer Cannot Seek De-Registration Of Society By Taking Benefit Of Own Wrong': Bombay High Court Quashes Order Disbanding 18-Year-Old Housing Body Section 12(5) A&C Act Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively To Invalidate Arbitrator Appointment Made Before 2015 Amendment: Delhi High Court Section 9 Arbitration Act | Non-Signatory Group Entities Can Be Restrained If They Are Used To Indirectly Defeat Negative Covenants: Bombay High Court CGST Act | Penalty Applies Prospectively From Jan 1, 2021; 'Any Person' Includes Non-Taxable Entities: Delhi High Court Nominated Members Barred From Voting Cannot Be Included In 'Total Number' To Compute 2/3rd Majority In No-Confidence Motion: Rajasthan High Court Full Bench Specific Performance | Agreement Executed By Some Co-Sharers Without Consent Of Others Is Not Enforceable: Madras High Court Trusteeship Of Public Charitable Trust Not Personal Property Capable Of Testamentary Devolution; Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Breach Of Service Rules By Arbitrator Does Not Automatically Trigger De Jure Ineligibility Under Section 12(5) A&C Act: Delhi High Court Declaration And Recovery Of Possession | Plaintiff Must Establish Title Irrespective Of Weakness In Defendant's Case: Madras High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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