Ad hoc service prior to regularisation cannot be counted for determining seniority or promotional eligibility.

The applicants were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) between 1997 and 2000 in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD)

They were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (AE) on an ad hoc basis between 2010 and 2016 against the 75% promotion quota

Meanwhile, the private respondents were appointed as AEs through direct recruitment (DR) in 2018 and 2021

Although the applicants had rendered long years of ad hoc service, the MCD did not convene a regular Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) until September 2023

Following this DPC, the applicants were regularized as AEs effective from 06.10.2023

Subsequently, the MCD issued a final seniority list on 19.02.2025, placing the direct recruits (appointed in 2018/2021) above the applicants (regularized in 2023)

The applicants challenged this seniority list and the subsequent initiation of promotions to the post of Executive Engineer (EE), arguing their ad hoc service should be counted for seniority and eligibility

1. Whether the ad hoc service rendered by the applicants prior to their regularization on 06.10.2023 can be counted for determining seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer.

2. Whether the seniority list dated 19.02.2025, prepared by reckoning seniority from the date of regular appointment, is legally sustainable.

3. Whether the respondents can initiate promotions to the post of Executive Engineer by relaxing eligibility conditions for junior direct recruits without amending the Recruitment Rules.

The court primarily applied the principle that ad hoc service does not count toward seniority unless the initial appointment was made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, as established in Rashi Mani Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, which mandated that seniority between direct recruits and promotees must be reckoned from the date of actual appointment, not the year of vacancy

Furthermore, the court applied Paragraph 6.4 of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 10.04.1989, which stipulates that promotions resulting from delayed DPCs have prospective effect even if vacancies pertain to earlier years

Regarding the relaxation of eligibility service for seniors, the court referenced the Delhi High Court's ruling that the DoPT OM dated 25.03.1996 is not self-executing and requires specific incorporation into Recruitment Rules

The Tribunal found that the applicants' initial promotions to AE were explicitly termed "ad hoc" and were accepted under conditions stating such service would not confer rights to seniority or further promotion

Applying Rashi Mani Mishra, the Tribunal reasoned that since these appointments were stop-gap arrangements and not made through a regular DPC process, the period of officiation could not be counted for seniority

The Tribunal further noted that under the K. Meghachandra Singh precedent, the private respondents (direct recruits) became members of the cadre upon their actual appointment in 2018 and 2021, whereas the applicants only substantively joined the cadre upon regularization in 2023

The Tribunal distinguished Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, noting it only applies when the initial appointment is made according to rules, which was not the case here

Finally, the Tribunal observed that the applicants failed to file objections to the provisional seniority list, thereby forfeiting their right to challenge the final list

The court held that the seniority list dated 19.02.2025 was prepared correctly by reckoning seniority from the date of actual regular appointment pursuant to the 2023 DPC

The Tribunal further ruled that administrative exigencies justified the temporary ad hoc arrangements for the post of Executive Engineer and that such actions were in consonance with the Recruitment Rules and DoPT instructions

No order as to costs was made