T. Jacob, Member (Ad.)

1. The reliefs prayed for in this OA are as follows:

"i. To call for the records on the file of 1st respondent in connection with the final seniority list of Statistical Investigator Grade II of Subordinate Statistical Services circulated vide Annexure A16 OM No. 11024/12/2012-SSS dated 12.02.2015 and quash and set aside the same as illegal;

ii. To call for the records on the file of 1st respondent in connection with Annexure A13 OM No. 11039/3(2)/2011-SSS dated 03.10.2012 of R1 rejecting the request of the applicant for revision of seniority and quash and set aside the same as illegal;

iii. To call for the records on the file of 1st respondent in connection with Annexure A20, OM No. 11039/03(2)/2011-SSS dated 25.07.2016 of R1 rejecting the request of the applicant for revision of seniority and quash and set aside the same as illegal;

iv. To call for the records on the file of 1st respondent in connection with Annexure A21 OM No. 11039/03(2)/2011-SSS dated 21.06.2017 of R1 rejecting the request of the applicant for revision of seniority and quash and set aside the same as illegal;

v. To call for the records on the file of 1st respondent in connection with Annexure A23 OM No. 11039/03(2)/2011-SSS (Part) dated 28.01.2019 of R1 rejecting the request of the applicant for revision of seniority and quash and set aside the same as illegal;

vi. To direct 1st respondent to issue a revised seniority list of Statistical Investigator Grade II in Subordinate Statistical Service (SSS), as on 01.01.2015, in so far as it relates to the applicant, counting her service in R2 department as Statistical Assistant from 14.06.2001 to 29.03.2005 as regular for all purposes including seniority, promotion, financial upgradation under ACPS/MACPS;

vii. To direct the respondents to grant the applicant all consequential benefit including promotion and financial upgradation under ACPS/MACPS and

viii. To pass any other order or direction or grant any other relief, in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."

2. The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:-

The applicant is aggrieved by the seniority list of Statistical Investigator Grade II as on 01.01.2015 issued by Respondent No. 1, vide Annexure A16, OM dated 12.02.2015, wherein the service rendered by the applicant in the erstwhile parent department i.e., Respondent No. 2, as Statistical Assistant, an analogous post, from 14.06.2001 to 29.03.2005 is not to be counted as regular service for determining the inter-se seniority. The clarification given by Respondent No. 2 that the said ad hoc service as Statistical Assistant was got regularized by die DGHS, who is the Competent Authority with the approval of Department of Personnel and Training was not accepted and the representations of the applicant in this regard, were rejected by the Respondent No. 1, the last such rejection letter is dated 28.01.2019. Hence, the present application.

3. The applicant has sought the aforesaid relief, inter alia, on the following grounds:-

a. The act of the Respondent No. 1 in rejecting the claim of the applicant to count her service from 14.06.2001 to 29.03.2005 is unsustainable in law and on facts;

b. Respondent No. 2 being the erstwhile administrative department of the applicant, he is the final authority with regard to the service matters pertaining to the service in the said department and it is not open to Respondent No. 1 to take a contrary view in regard to details of service rendered in me previous department;

c. Respondent No. 1, having rejected the representation of the applicant, stating the impugned seniority list had been prepared based on the information provided by the erstwhile department, on having obtained the clarification, from the erstwhile department, is precluded from resorting to other reasons for rejecting the claim of the applicant.

d. Refusal to count the service rendered in the analogous post ie Statistical Assistant under Respondent No. 2 on absorption is contrary to the terms and conditions agreed to by R1 vide OM No. 12016/3/2010-SSS dated 1st March 2011 and he is estopped from doing so;

e. The regularization of the ad hoc promotion was made with due approval of Department of Personnel and Training, who accorded their approval to the same as a special case. Respondent No. 1 is not the competent authority to overrule the decision of the Department of Personnel and Training in establishment matters.

f. Retrospective promotion in suitable cases can be made where it causes prejudice to the employee and where there is no justification for undue delay in holding DPC.

g. The act of R1 in ignoring the seniority list issued by R2 in the analogous post of Statistical Assistant as on 01.04.2007 and 01.04.2008 negates the principle of seniority enunciated by Apex Court in Nirmal Kumar Choudhary & Ors. etc Vs. State of Bihar and Ors, etc on 16 December 1987.

h. Even assuming that the applicant the service rendered by the applicant from 14.06.2001 to 29.03.2005 is not regular but only ad hoc, following by regular promotion from 30.03.2005, the applicant is entitled to count, in view of the ratio laid down by Apex Court in Maharashtra Direct Recruit Engineers' Case, (Citation: 1990 SCC (2) 715) wherein it is held that ad hoc promotion if at all can be only for a very minimal period and continuance of the same beyond two to three years leads to the irresistible conclusion that the promotion is regular for all purposes.

i. The act of R1 bristles with arbitrariness and strikes at the root of the principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 and Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India;

j. Seniority and promotion are valuable rights of the citizens and are treated as property within the meaning of the statutory right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and it cannot be denied except under due process of law.

4. Applicant has relied on the following judgments in support of her case:-

i) Apex Court decision in K. Madhavan and another Vs. Union of India, reported in 1987 SCC (4) 566.

ii) Apex Court decision in Nirmal Kumar Choudhary & Ors. etc. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. etc on 16.12.1987 1988 AIR 394 : 1988 SCR (2) 410).

iii) High Court of Madras in K. Malathi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu dated 25.01.2012 and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench on R. Balasubramanian Vs. UO and Ors. on 12.10.2007.

iv) The Apex Court decision in Narender Chadha & Others Vs. UOI & Ors.1986 (2) SCC 157) .

v) The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.P. Doval & Ors. Vs. Chief Secretary Government of Up & Ors. in C.W.P. No. 5105 of 1983, 5113 of 1983 (citation: CDJ 1984 SC 222) dated 18.07.1984;

vi) The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narender Chadha & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. in CMP 2604 of 1985 in W.P. No. 1595 of 1979 dated 11.02.1986. (Citation: CDJ 1986 SC 037);

vii) The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of I.K. Sukhija Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 3207-3210 of 1995 dated 08.07.1997 (Citation: CDJ 1997 SC 518);

viii) The judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of R. Balasubramanian vs. Union of India & Ors. Dated 12.10.2007 reported in 2008 (2) SLJ 110 CAT;

ix) The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Sumnyan & Ors. Vs. Limi Niri & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 3512 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP(c) No. 8510 of 2009) dated 20.04.2010 reported in CDJ 2010 SC 362;

5. The respondents have filed a detailed reply. It is submitted that applicant was promoted purely on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 14.06.2001 vide order dated 02.07.2001 as Statistical Assistant in the absence of Notified RRs for the post of Statistical Assistant under respondent No. 2 without consultation of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The said ad-hoc promotion of applicant was made to meet exigencies of work and post could not to be kept vacant until regular candidate becomes available with following riders that:

(a) This ad-hoc promotion will not confer on her any right or claim for regular appointment in the grade. The ad-hoc service will not count for me purpose of seniority in the grade and for eligibility for regularisation unless otherwise eligible.

(b) The ad-hoc promotion once granted is liable to be withdrawn without prior notice and will be reverted to her original post.

The ad-hoc promotion was granted to applicant in absence of Notified RRs and without consultation of UPSC without following due process of Law. Hence, the ad-hoc promotion of applicant was not in order. As a result of this, service rendered by applicant on ad-hoc basis could not be counted for assigning seniority in the cadre of Statistical Investigator Grade II of Subordinate Statistical Service (SSS).

6. As per the instructions contained under sub-para (i) of Para 4 of DOPT OM dated 30.03.1988, the ad-hoc promotions are valid only for one year from the date of ad-hoc promotion order. In case ad-hoc promotion is required to be continued for more than one year, then approval for continuation of ad-hoc promotion is required to be obtained from DOPT at least two months well in advance before the expiry of one year period. In case, approval of DoPT for continuance of ad-hoc promotion is not received before the expiry of one year period, the ad-hoc appointment/promotion shall automatically cease on the expiry of one year period. Ex-post facto approval for continuance of ad-hoc promotion of applicant for the period of 14.06.2001 to 29.03.2005 was sought by respondent No. 2 vide their Note 20.06.2006 from DoPT and it was conveyed by DoPT vide their Note dated 03.07.2006 that "No such instance (ex-post-factor approval) should occur in future. Ad-hoc appointments beyond one year should not be allowed without approval of Department of Personal and Training. This should be strictly complied with." The decision of DoPT was conveyed to Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.07.2006. It is established that applicant was promoted on regular basis, as Statistical Assistant w.e.f. 30.03.2005 vide respondent No. 2 order dated 13.04.2005 on regular basis, whereas ad-hoc promotion of applicant would automatically cease on the expiry of the one year term i.e., on 14.06.2002 in terms of sub-para (i) of Para 4 of DoPT OM dated 30.03.1988. Therefore, ad-hoc promotion of applicant for the period of 14.06.2001 to 29.03.2005 has been re-examined by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in consultation with DoPT and it has been decided vide Office Order dated 29.01.2021 that ad-hoc promotion of applicant as Statistical Assistant has not been regularised w.e.f. 14.06.2001, however, DoPT had granted only ex-post-facto approval for continuation of ad-hoc promotion during the period of 14.06.2001 to 29.03.2005 in terms of sub-para (i) of Para 4 of DoPT OM dated 30.03.1998." Accordingly, the applicant has been promoted as Statistical Assistant on regular basis w.e.f. 30.03.2005.

7. Further it is submitted that DoPT granted ex post-facto approval for continuance of regular promotion during the period of 14.06.2001 to 29.03.2005 in terms of sub-para (i) of Para 4 of DoPT OM dated 30.03.1988. Further, Ad-hoc promotion of applicant could not be regularised w.e.f. 14.06.2001 in terms of facts and OMs of DoPT DoPT could not allow to regularize of an Ad-hoc promotion with retrospective effect, without making any amendment in their OM dated 23.07.2001, 01.07.1991 and 10.04.1989. Therefore, interpretation of applicant in respect of respondent No. 2 Notes dated 21.06.2006 is completely unjustified. Hence, applicant was neither assigned seniority w.e.f. 14.06.2001 nor accounted her ad-hoc service for the purpose of grant of 3rd MACP.

8. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating the facts stated in the OA.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

10. Admittedly, the applicant was appointed as Computor in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 (Revised Rs. 4000-6000, GP OF Rs. 2800, Level-5 in 5th, 6th, and 7th CPC respectively) on 21.06.1995 under 2nd Respondent of this OA with the clear stipulation that her ad hoc appointment shall not bestow on her a claim for regular appointment. In the absence of Recruitment Rule, for the post of Statistical Assistant, the applicant was promoted to the post of Statistical Assistant (Rs. 5000-8000) with retrospective effect dated 14.06.2001 vide order dated on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 02.07.2001. Subsequent to this, the applicant was promoted on regular basis w.e.f. 30.03.2005 vide order dated 13.04.2005 in terms of Notified Recruitment Rules of Statistical Assistant dated 01.03.2003. Thereafter, applicant was absorbed & appointed in same or equivalent grade of Subordinate Statistical Service (SSS) as Statistical Investigator Grade II vide order dated 01.03.2011 under respondent No. 1 and assigned seniority in the cadre of Statistical Service (SSS) in light of respondent No. 2's order dated 13.04.2005 taking into account date of regular appointment w.e.f. 30.03.2005.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that respondent No. 2, being the erstwhile administrative department of the applicant, is the final authority with regard to the service matters pertaining to the service rendered in the said department and it is not open to respondent No. 1 to take a contrary view in regard to details of service rendered in the previous department. The applicant was admittedly promoted to the post of Statistical Assistant on ad hoc basis after due selection by the DPC pending finalization of the Recruitment Rules and that she fulfilled the eligibility conditions for promotion as per the draft Recruitment Rules and the Regular Recruitment Rules that were eventually notified.

12. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, ad hoc promotion granted to applicant w.e.f. 14.06.2001 in absence of notified RRs of Statistical Assistant without consultation of UPSC, which was in violation of instructions contained under DoPT OM dated 09.07.1985. Further, applicant could not be promoted on regular basis, as Statistical Assistant w.e.f. 14.06.2001 without consultation of DoPT. DoPT had granted only ex-post facto approval vide their Note dated 03.07.2006 to continuance of ad hoc promotion during the period of 14.06.2001 to 29.03.2005 and DoPT never allowed respondent No. 2 to regularise the ad hoc promotion of applicant w.e.f. 14.06.2001. However, inadvertently, respondent No. 2 treated the ad hoc promotion of applicant as regular promotion w.e.f. 14.06.2001 for the purpose of seniority without consultation of DoPT. The ad hoc promotion of applicant could not be regularised w.e.f. 14.06.2001 in terms of facts and OMs of DoPT. Therefore, interpretation of applicant in respect of respondent No. 2 notes dated 21.06.2006 is completely baseless and far from the truth. Hence, applicant could not be assigned seniority w.e.f. 14.06.2001 nor her service can be counted for the purpose of grant of 3rd MACP.

13. (i) The instructions contained in DoP & T OM No. 28036/01/2001-Estt(D) dated 23.07.2001 provide as follows:- "The issue of regularization of Ad-hoc employees hes been discussed in several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of R.N. Nanjundappa Vs. T. Thimmaiah & Ors. AIR 1972 SC 1767 ), the Supreme Court observed that regularization is not itself a mode of recruitment and any act in the exercise of executive power of the government cannot override rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. In the case of State of Orissa Vs. Sukanti Mahapatra AIR 1993 SC 1650), the Supreme Court has observed that assuming that their having served for long years is a valid reason for regularization, that without anything more, will not meet the requirement of the action being in public interest and what has been done under the impugned orders is to regularize the illegal entry into service as if the Rules were not in existence. In the case of Dr. M.A. Haque Vs. UOI 1993 2 SCC 213) , the Supreme Court held that the recruitment ruled made under Article 309 of the Constitution have to be followed strictly and not in breach. If a disregard of the rules and the bypassing of the Public-Service-Commission are permitted, it will open a back-door for illegal recruitment without limit. In the case of Dr. Arunadhati A Paragaonkar and another Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1995 SC 962 ), the Apex Court has held that a continuous service by itself do not give rise to the claim of regularization."

(ii) As per the DOP & T OM No. 22011/04/1991-Estt. (D) Dated 01.07.1991 provides "that in cases where Government servant already holds the post on ad-hoc basis, the appointment is to be treated as regular from the date of conveying of advice of UPSC".

(iii) As per Government policy on the date of effect of regular promotions, as contained in the DOP & T OM No. 22011/05/1986-Estt (D) dated 10.04.1989 under Para 6.4.4 and 17.10, are also reproduced below:

Para 6.4.4: While promotions will be made in the order of the consolidated select list, such promotions will have only prospective effect even in cases where the vacancies relate to earlier year(s) i.e., from the date of assumption of charge in the higher post.

Para 17.10: The general principle is that promotion of officers included in the panel would be regular from the date of validity of the panel or the date of their actual promotion whichever is later.

iv) In view of provisions stated above, the seniority assigned to applicant in the cadre of Statistical Assistant by respondent No. 2 vide their Circular dated 10.12.2007 and dated 29.04.2008 was not in order and irregularities needs to be rectified. As a result of this, seniority could not be extended to applicant in the cadre of Statistical Investigator Grade II (Rs. 5000-8000, GP of Rs. 4200) of Subordinate Statistical Service (SSS) under cadre control of Respondent No. 1 on the basis of clerical errors or irregularities committed by respondent No. 2. The seniority assigned to the applicant, based on her date of regular promotion in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 i.e., 30.03.2005 is in order and period spent on ad-hoc basis i.e., 14.06.2001 to 29.03.2005 cannot be counted for grant of seniority in the cadre of Statistical Investigator Grade II.

14. Now we would advert to the legal facet of the issue. The law on this point is well settled now. The regularisation should normally be from a prospective date and that too keeping in view the vacancy position and reservation roster. The regularisation can be made only in accordance with a specific scheme. In the instant case, there was no scheme of regularization as such, the word regularization used is a misnomer and the applicant who was working as Computor was promoted as Statistical Assistant on ad hoc basis with effect from 14.6.2001 by respondent No. 2 in the absence of recruitment rules. The applicant's ad hoc appointment was merely a stopgap arrangement. The said ad hoc service as Statistical Assistant was got regularized by the DGHS, who is the Competent Authority was not accepted and the representations of the applicant in this regard, were rejected by the Respondent No. 1. The ad hoc service cannot be counted for determining the seniority if the initial appointment has been made as a stop gap arrangement and not according to rules. The Apex Court in a Constitution Bench judgement in the case of Secretary to State of Karnataka and Ors. V.N. Umadevi and Ors., have settled the law on regularization. It has been held that any appointment made on contract, ad hoc, casual, for fixed term basis etc. i.e. de hors of the rules, cannot count for seniority. Otherwise also one selected earlier shall rank senior to the one selected later, is the general rule. We also find support of this proposition of law from the verdicts of Apex Court mentioned in the succeeding paras.

15. In Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association V. State of Maharashtra and Ors., the Constitution Bench held that once and incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The law was summed up in the form of eleven propositions. It is sufficient to refer to the first one of them, which is in the following terms:

To sum up, we hold that:

(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stopgap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority.

(Emphasis supplied)

16. We also find support of die same from a very recent decision of Apex Court in case of Mohammed Isral and Ors. V. State of West Bengal and Ors. 2002 (3) SLJ 80 (SC) wherein their Lordships have held that the service rendered on ad hoc basis which was subject to approval by the Public Service Commission (PSC) can not count for seniority till such approval of Public Service Commission but PSC approved only in the year 1988. It was held that ad hoc promotion was against rules so any service prior to 1988 cannot count as regular one and therefore the same cannot count for seniority. In other words, one can get seniority only from the date he fulfils all the eligibility conditions.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a recent case, vide its order dated 28.09.2021 in Malook Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6024 of 2021 and with 6025 of 2021) in Civil Appeal Nos. 6026-6028 of 2021, reiterated mat the services rendered by ad hoc employees prior to their regularization cannot be counted for die purpose of seniority. In this case, while allowing a writ petition filed by some regularized employees, the Single Bench of the High Court (in Malook Singh vs. State of Punjab) observed that once the services had been regularized, they would relate back to the date. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

"19. The judgment of the Single Judge in Malook Singh's case essentially dealt with two facets. The first was that persons who were recruited after following the regular procedure for selection after the date of regularization of ad hoc employees on 1 April 1977 could not rank senior to those who had been regularized prior to their date of appointment. The second aspect on which the Single Judge held in favour of the petitioners in CWP No. 2780 of 1980 was that once regularization takes place, the length of ad hoc service must count for the determination of seniority. It is important to note here that the second facet of the judgment of the Single Judge was specifically kept open in the Letters Patent Appeal by the Division Bench. Therefore, clearly the judgment in Malook Singh's case did not conclude the issue of whether ad hoc service would count for the purpose of determining seniority.

20. The law on the issue of whether the period of ad hoc service can be counted for the purpose of determining seniority has been settled by this Court in multiple cases. In Direct Recruits (supra), a Constitution Bench of this Court has observed:

"13. When the cases were taken up for hearing before us, it was faintly suggested that the principle laid down in Patwardhan case (1977) 3 SCC 399 : 1977 SCC (L & S) 391 : (1977) 3 SCR 775 ] was unsound and fit to be overruled, but no attempt was made to substantiate the plea. We were taken through the judgment by the learned counsel for the parties more than once and we are in complete agreement with the ratio decidendi, that the period of continuous officiation by a government servant, after his appointment by following the rules applicable for substantive appointments, has to be taken into account for determining his seniority; and seniority cannot be determined on the sole test of confirmation, for, as was pointed out, confirmation is one of the inglorious uncertainties of government service depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of substantive vacancies. The principle for deciding inter se seniority has to conform to the principles of equality spelt out by Articles 14 and 16. If an appointment is made by way of stop-gap arrangement, without considering the claims of all the eligible available persons and without following the rules of appointment, me experience on such appointment cannot be equated with the experience of a regular appointee, because of the qualitative difference in the appointment. To equate the two would be to treat two unequal as equal which would violate the equality clause. But if the appointment is made after considering the claims of all eligible candidates and the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with the rules made for regular substantive appointments, there is no reason to exclude the officiating service for purpose of seniority. Same will be the position if the initial appointment itself is made in accordance with the rules applicable to substantive appointments as in the present case. To hold otherwise will be discriminatory and arbitrary.....

............

47. To sum up, we hold that

(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to a rule, his seniority has to counted from the date of appointment and not according to date of his confirmation. The corollary to the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account considering the seniority."

(Emphasis supplied)

The decision in Direct Recruits (Supra) stands for the principle that ad hoc service cannot be counted for determining the seniority if the initial appointment has been made as a stop gap arrangement and not according to rules. The reliance placed by the Single Judge in the judgement dated 6 December 1991 on Direct Recruits (supra) to hold that the ad hoc service should be counted for conferring the benefit of seniority in the present case is clearly misplaced. This principle laid down in Direct Recruits (supra) was subsequently followed by this Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India. Recently a two judge Bench of this Court in Rashi Mani Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh of which one of us (Justice DY Chandrachud) was a part, observed that the services rendered by ad hoc employees prior to their regularization cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority while interpreting the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad Hoc Appointment Rules. This Court noted that under the applicable Rules, "substantive appointment" does not include ad hoc appointment and thus seniority which has to be counted from "substantive appointment" would not include ad hoc service. This Court also clarified that the judgment in Direct Recruits (supra) cannot be relied upon to confer the benefit of seniority based on ad hoc service since it clearly states that ad hoc appointments made as stop gap arrangements do not render the ad hoc service eligible for determining seniority. This Court speaking through Justice MR Shah made the following observations:-

"36. The sum and substance of the above discussion would be that on a fair reading of the 1979 Rules, extended from time to time; initial appointment orders in the year 1985 and the subsequent order of regularization in the year 1989 of the ad hoc appointees and on a fair reading of the relevant Service Rules, namely Service Rules, 1993 and the Seniority Rules, 1991, our conclusion would be that the services rendered by the ad hoc appointees prior to their regularization as per the 1979 Rules shall not be counted for the purpose of seniority, vis-a-vis, the direct recruits who were appointed prior to 1989 and they are not entitled to seniority from the date of their initial appointment in the year 1985. The resultant effect would be that the subsequent re-determination of the seniority in the year 2016 cannot be sustained which was considering the services rendered by ad hoc appointees prior to 1989, i.e. from the date of then-initial appointment in 1985. This cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the seniority list of 2001 counting the services rendered by ad hoc appointees from the date of their regularization in the year 1989 is to be restored.

37. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn.(Supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the ad hoc appointees is concerned, it is required to be noted that even in the said decision also, it is observed and held that where initial appointment was made only ad hoc as a stop gap arrangement and not according to the rules, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. In the case before this Court, the appointments were made to a post according to rule but as ad hoc and subsequently they were confirmed and to mat this Court observed and held that where appointments made in accordance with the rules, seniority is to be counted from the date of such appointment and not from the date of confirmation. In the present case, it is not the case of confirmation of the service of ad hoc appointees in the year 1989. In the year 1989, their services are regularized after following due procedure as required under the 1979 Rules and after their names were recommended by the Selection Committee constituted under the 1979 Rules. As observed hereinabove, the appointments in the year 1989 after their names were recommended by the Selection Committee constituted as per the 1979 Rules can be said to be the "substantive appointments". Therefore, even on facts also, the decision in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. (Supra) shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the decision of this Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. (supra) was considered by this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar (supra) when this Court interpreted the very 1979 Rules."

The notification dated 3 May 1977 stated that the ad hoc appointments were made in administrative interest in anticipation of regular appointments and on account of delay that takes place in making regular appointment through the concerned agencies. In this regard, the vacancies were notified to the Employment Exchange or advertisements were issued, as the case may be, by appointing authorities. The appointments were not made on the recommendations of the Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board. However, subsequently a policy decision was made to regularize the ad hoc appointees since their ouster after a considerable period of service would have entailed hardship. Thus, the initial appointment was supposed to be a stop gap arrangement, besides being not in accordance with the rules, and the ad hoc service cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority."

18. We have exhaustively discussed the legal positions in terms of various judicial decisions in regard to counting of ad hoc service for the purpose of seniority. In this case, the isolated post in her parent organisation National Tuberculosis Institute(Ministry of Health) was integrated with the organised Statistical Service administered in another Ministry. The judgements cited by the applicant do not appear to have relationship with the facts and circumstances in this case. The applicant has not brought out in what way, in specific terms, the seniority fixed for her is in violation of existing rules or in what way she is put in a disadvantageous situation vis-a-vis holders of similar posts which might have also been integrated with the central statistical service(SSS). It is on record that the administrative Ministry had duly consulted the DoP & T, the nodal authority in regard to policy on seniority issues, for fixing the seniority of the applicant, which Department had also earlier approved her ad hoc appointment in the post. One cannot get seniority in a post even before the recruitment rules for the post are notified.

19. In view of what has been said and discussed above and the legal position crystallized, the OA is devoid of merits. The same stands dismissed accordingly.