Ad hoc service counts toward seniority when regularized after selection without intervening appointments.

The applicants joined the respondents’ service as Daily Rated Clerks in 1992, were regularised as Lower Division Clerks in 1994, promoted as Upper Division Clerks in 2006, and appointed as Assistants on an ad hoc basis in 2014. Their appointments were regularised in 2015.

A draft seniority list issued in 2019 placed officials appointed through the 2014 recruitment and 2015 Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) above the applicants, relying on the seniority methodology associated with Union of India v. N.R. Parmar. The applicants’ representations were rejected, and they sought correction of the seniority list, including seniority from their ad hoc appointment date of 11 April 2014.

The Tribunal also noted that an earlier order in OA No. 893 of 2019, directing refixation of seniority, had been affirmed by the High Court and had become final.

Whether the unfinalised 2019 draft seniority list could continue to be based on N.R. Parmar after that decision was overruled by K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro.

Whether the applicants were entitled to count their ad hoc service from 11 April 2014 for seniority, given that their ad hoc appointments were followed by regular promotion without intervening appointments or promotions.

In K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, (2020) 5 SCC 689, the Supreme Court overruled Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340, while protecting inter se seniority already settled under N.R. Parmar; the Tribunal understood that protection not to cover seniority that had not been finalised when Meghachandra Singh was decided, subject to the stated exception for seniority fixed under the relevant rules by reference to the vacancy date or advertisement date.

The respondents relied on DoPT OMs dated 29 October 1975, 30 March 1988 and 23 July 2001, which state that ad hoc service does not count towards seniority or eligibility for promotion.

The Tribunal also treated its earlier order in OA No. 893 of 2019, as affirmed by the High Court, as final and applicable to the present seniority dispute.

The Tribunal held that the 2019 list remained a draft and that seniority had not been finalised under N.R. Parmar before Meghachandra Singh was decided. The protection for seniority already settled under N.R. Parmar therefore did not apply, making the draft list unsustainable.

As to the applicants’ ad hoc service, the Tribunal accepted that their appointments followed the relevant selection steps, were followed by regular promotions, and involved no intervening appointments or promotions. In those circumstances, it found their claim to seniority from the ad hoc appointment date justified, notwithstanding the general DoPT position concerning ad hoc service.

The Tribunal further considered the earlier, affirmed decision in OA No. 893 of 2019 applicable to the seniority dispute.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to recast the seniority list in accordance with this order and the directions in OA No. 893 of 2019, as affirmed by the High Court, within three months of receiving the order. No order as to costs was made.