Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission Section 127 CrPC | Past Compromise Not An Eternal Estoppel To Bar Wife From Seeking Enhancement In Maintenance: Orissa High Court States Can Prescribe Higher Qualifications Than UGC Norms, Additional Tests Promote Meritocracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cancel Registered Sale Deed Or Adjudicate Title Disputes: Telangana High Court Principal Employer Cannot Abdicate Statutory Liability For Overtime Wages Of Contract Labour Despite Contractual Indemnity Clauses: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For Invoking SC/ST Act Provisions If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Re-valuation Of Structures Once Compensation Dispute Is Adjudicated Under Section 64 RFCTLARR Act: Telangana High Court Revenue Village Naming | Government Must Ensure Names Do Not Reflect Any Person, Caste, Or Religion Under Policy Guidelines: Rajasthan High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Status As 'Payee' Or 'Holder In Due Course': Himachal Pradesh 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