Ad hoc promotion cannot confer seniority; only valid substantive appointment under recruitment rules counts toward inter se ranking.

Ad hoc promotions against substantive vacancies do not create seniority from the initial date of promotion when the recruitment rules require substantive appointment within the prescribed quota and procedure. Continuous officiating in the same post, by itself, cannot regularise an appointment made dehors the rules, and only service rendered after a valid appointment in accordance with the statutory scheme counts for inter se seniority. The rule power to relax service conditions cannot be used to bypass the basic recruitment requirements, and no deemed relaxation was justified on the facts. Seniority therefore had to be fixed only from valid substantive appointment under the rules.

---

---

Issues: Whether promotees appointed on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancies could claim regular appointment from the dates of their initial promotions for seniority purposes, and whether their continuous officiating service could be counted towards inter se seniority with direct recruits.

Analysis: Recruitment to the service was governed by a statutory scheme providing distinct sources, quotas, and procedures for direct recruits and promotees. Membership of the service depended on appointment in a substantive capacity in accordance with the rules. The initial promotions of the promotees were found to be ad hoc, outside the prescribed recruitment procedure, and in excess of the quota. Continuous service in the same post, without more, did not convert such appointments into regular appointments. The earlier Constitution Bench principles on seniority were applied to hold that ad hoc or stop-gap officiation dehors the rules cannot be counted for seniority, while service rendered after a valid appointment according to rules can be counted. The power to relax conditions of service under the relevant rule did not extend to dispensing with the basic recruitment rules, and the facts did not justify deemed relaxation.

Conclusion: The promotees were not entitled to count their ad hoc service from the dates of initial promotion for seniority, and their seniority had to be reckoned only from valid substantive appointment within quota under the rules.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded only to the extent of securing fixation of seniority and consequential benefits in accordance with the statutory rules, while the claim to regularise ad hoc service from the initial dates of promotion was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Ad hoc or stop-gap appointments made dehors the recruitment rules do not confer seniority from the date of initial appointment, and only a substantive appointment made according to the statutory recruitment scheme can be the basis for counting seniority.

---