Ad hoc service does not count toward seniority, and tribunals cannot order post-filling beyond the pleadings.

Ad hoc service rendered under a stop-gap or rule-deficient appointment cannot be counted towards seniority because it is not regular service made in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules; the claim to seniority from the original ad hoc appointment therefore failed. The Tribunal also could not direct filling up of a post on a public interest footing when no such prayer was made in the original application, as its jurisdiction remains confined to the statutory limits of the pleadings and the Administrative Tribunals Act. The direction to fill the post was accordingly set aside, while the challenge to exclusion of ad hoc service for seniority did not succeed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service rendered on ad hoc basis could be counted towards seniority; (ii) Whether the Tribunal could direct filling up of posts on a public interest footing beyond the scope of the original application.

Issue (i): Whether service rendered on ad hoc basis could be counted towards seniority.

Analysis: The appointment was treated as a temporary, ad hoc arrangement pending regular recruitment and not as an appointment made in accordance with the applicable rules. The governing principle applied was that where an appointment is made de hors the rules or as a stop-gap arrangement, the period of such ad hoc service cannot be counted for seniority. The Court relied on the distinction between ad hoc service pending regularisation and regular service made after due consideration of eligible candidates.

Conclusion: The ad hoc period could not be counted towards seniority, and the claim to seniority from the date of original ad hoc appointment failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal could direct filling up of posts on a public interest footing beyond the scope of the original application.

Analysis: The Tribunal's direction to fill up the super-speciality post was not supported by a prayer in the original application and was founded on a public interest consideration. The Court held that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is confined to the statutory limits of the Administrative Tribunals Act and that it cannot assume a public interest jurisdiction or issue directions beyond the pleadings. The employer's domain in deciding whether a post should be filled was also emphasised.

Conclusion: The direction requiring the respondents to fill the post could not be sustained and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to counting ad hoc service for seniority failed, but the Tribunal's affirmative direction to fill the post was quashed, leaving the result partly in favour of the appellant side.

Ratio Decidendi: Ad hoc service rendered under a stop-gap or rule-deficient appointment does not count towards seniority, and a tribunal cannot issue directions beyond the statutory scope of the pleadings by invoking public interest.

---