Ad-hoc promotion confers no vested right and may be reversed to comply with statutory recruitment rules.

The applicant was appointed as a Lab Technician in the Agriculture Department of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep on April 1, 1994, under the 1992 Recruitment Rules (RR).

On August 13, 2019, the applicant was granted an ad-hoc promotion to the post of Agricultural Demonstrator/Soil Conservation Assistant for six months.

On December 2, 2019, the respondents issued orders reverting the applicant to his original post of Lab Technician and promoted Respondent No. 5 to the post of Agricultural Demonstrator.

The applicant challenged this reversion, alleging it was punitive, lacked notice, and favored a junior.

The respondents contended that the 2010 amended RR established a specific hierarchy for promotion: Agricultural Supervisors with five years of regular service were the primary feeder category, while Lab Technicians with 13 years of combined service were only considered in the absence of the former.

Respondent No. 5 had regular service as an Agricultural Supervisor since 1997, whereas the applicant’s previous stints as a supervisor were purely ad-hoc and temporary.

1. Whether the applicant, as a Lab Technician, had a superior right to promotion over Respondent No. 5 under the Recruitment Rules of 2010.

2. Whether the reversion of the applicant from an ad-hoc promotion to his substantive post without notice was legally sustainable.

Schedule-I of the Recruitment Rules of Group 'C' and 'D' posts (notified on 13.05.2010), which dictates that Agricultural Supervisors with five years of regular service must be considered first for promotion to Agricultural Demonstrator, and only in their absence can Lab Technicians with 13 years of combined service be considered.

The legal principle that ad-hoc or temporary appointments do not confer any right to regular appointment, seniority, or eligibility for further promotion.

The Tribunal found that the 2010 RR governed the selection process in 2019 and held statutory force over obsolete or unaccepted internal recommendations.

Upon examining the service records, the court noted that Respondent No. 5 was a regular Agricultural Supervisor since 1997 with over 22 years of regular service, making him part of the primary feeder category under the RR.

In contrast, the applicant’s substantive post was Lab Technician; his previous roles as a supervisor were explicitly "purely on temporary and adjustment basis" and "officiating," as evidenced by the original appointment and pay fixation orders.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s initial ad-hoc promotion on 13.08.2019 was erroneous because it bypassed the primary feeder category (Respondent No. 5).

Since the promotion was ad-hoc, it conferred no vested rights, and the department was within its authority to correct the error by reverting the applicant and promoting the eligible candidate.

The Tribunal concluded that the reversion was not a punitive action but a correction of an erroneous ad-hoc arrangement.

The Original Application was dismissed, and the orders of reversion and the promotion of Respondent No. 5 were upheld. No costs were awarded.