Ad hoc service rendered prior to regularisation cannot be counted for seniority or promotion eligibility.

The applicants were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) in 1997 and 2000

They became eligible for promotion to Assistant Engineer (AE) after six or eight years of service per the 2004 Recruitment Rules (RRs)

Due to a lack of regular Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs), the applicants were granted ad-hoc promotions to AE between 2010 and 2016

Meanwhile, direct recruits (private respondents) were appointed as AEs in 2018 and 2022

The applicants' ad-hoc services were eventually regularized via a DPC held on 05.09.2023, with regular promotion effective from 06.10.2023

A final seniority list issued on 19.02.2025 placed the direct recruits above the applicants

The applicants challenged this seniority list and the subsequent ad-hoc promotion of direct recruits to Executive Engineer (EE), arguing that their ad-hoc service should count toward seniority and eligibility

Notably, one applicant (Anil Kumar) had previously filed OA No. 839/2025 on similar grounds, which was dismissed on 29.04.2025

1. Whether service rendered on an ad-hoc basis prior to regularization can be counted for determining seniority and eligibility for further promotion.

2. Whether the inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees was correctly determined based on the date of actual regular appointment versus the year of vacancy.

3. Whether the present application is barred by the principle of finality of judicial proceedings given the dismissal of a prior similar application.

The court applied the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 10.04.1989, which stipulates that even if DPCs are delayed, regular promotions from year-wise panels take only prospective effect

It relied on the DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021, issued following the Supreme Court judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, which established that seniority of direct recruits and promotees is reckoned from the date of actual appointment and not the year of vacancy

The court applied the principle from Rashi Mani Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), holding that ad-hoc service dehors the recruitment rules cannot be counted toward seniority

The court also distinguished the "officiating service" rule from Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra (1990), noting it applies only when the initial appointment is made according to the rules

The Tribunal found that the applicants' initial promotions were expressly "ad-hoc" and subject to conditions that such service would not confer rights to seniority or further promotion

Under the ruling in Rashi Mani Mishra, service rendered before regularization cannot be counted for seniority unless specifically provided for by rules

Since the applicants were regularized only on 06.10.2023, their seniority cannot pre-date that point

Regarding inter-se seniority, the Tribunal observed that the private respondents (direct recruits) joined in 2018/2022—prior to the applicants' regularized promotion date in 2023

Per the K. Meghachandra Singh doctrine and the 2021 DoPT instructions, seniority is determined by the date of actual regular appointment, not the vacancy year, thus placing the direct recruits higher

The Tribunal further noted that the applicants failed to file objections to the provisional seniority list when invited in August 2024

Finally, the Tribunal highlighted that re-litigating issues already decided in OA No. 839/2025 violated the principle of finality

It held that: (i) ad-hoc service rendered prior to regularization cannot be counted for seniority or eligibility for the post of Executive Engineer as it was not a substantive appointment

(ii) the seniority list dated 19.02.2025 was legally sound as it followed the "date of actual appointment" principle mandated by the Supreme Court and DoPT

(iii) the applicants were precluded from re-agitating issues previously dismissed in earlier proceedings

No order as to costs was made