Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High 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