Ad hoc appointment cannot become regular seniority without rule-based regularisation and the prescribed qualifying examination.

Ad hoc stenographers could not be treated as regularly appointed from their initial dates of appointment for seniority, because the appointments were expressly temporary, the governing rules did not authorise regularisation dehors the scheme, and the prescribed Special Qualifying Examination had not been passed. Long continuance in service and administrative confirmation orders did not confer a right to seniority over regularly selected stenographers. The Tribunal challenge was not barred by limitation, as the cause of action arose with the impugned seniority orders and the dispute involved continuing representations and revised lists. The writ petitions claiming seniority failed, while the connected challenge to the Tribunal's contrary view succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the ad hoc stenographers could be treated as regularly appointed from the dates of their initial appointments for seniority purposes; (ii) whether the challenge before the Tribunal was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): whether the ad hoc stenographers could be treated as regularly appointed from the dates of their initial appointments for seniority purposes.

Analysis: The appointments were made expressly on ad hoc basis and were liable to termination when candidates selected through the Staff Selection Commission became available. The Court held that the departmental authorities had no power to regularise such appointments dehors the governing rules. Regularisation, where contemplated by the administrative scheme, was linked to the Special Qualifying Examination, and none of the ad hoc stenographers had appeared in or passed that examination. The purported confirmation orders and the Board's communication treating them as regular from the date of initial appointment were held to be unsupported by any identified rule or competence. Long continuance in service did not confer a right to seniority over regularly selected candidates.

Conclusion: The ad hoc stenographers could not be treated as regular from their initial dates of appointment, and they were not entitled to seniority above the regularly selected stenographers.

Issue (ii): whether the challenge before the Tribunal was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The Court held that the cause of action arose when the impugned seniority and consequential orders were passed, and the matter had been the subject of continuing representations and shifting seniority lists. In the circumstances, the proceedings before the Tribunal were not treated as barred by limitation, and in any event the Tribunal had power to condone delay under the governing provision.

Conclusion: The challenge was not held to be barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions raising the claim of seniority on behalf of the ad hoc stenographers failed, while the connected writ petition challenging the Tribunal's contrary view succeeded, with the impugned regularisation-based seniority consequences set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: An ad hoc appointment cannot be elevated into regular appointment or seniority by administrative confirmation unless the governing rules so permit and the prescribed mode of regularisation is satisfied, including any required qualifying examination.

---