Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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