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

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

Under the 2004 Recruitment Rules, they became eligible for promotion to Assistant Engineer (AE) after six years (for degree holders) or eight years (for diploma holders) of regular service

Due to a lack of regular Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs), the applicants were granted ad hoc promotions to AE in 2010, 2013, and 2016

Meanwhile, the respondents recruited direct recruits (private respondents) as AEs in 2018 and 2022

A regular DPC was eventually conducted on September 5, 2023, which regularized the applicants' promotions with prospective effect from October 6, 2023

A final seniority list was issued on February 19, 2025, which placed the direct recruits above the applicants because the applicants' seniority was reckoned from their date of regular promotion in 2023, while direct recruits were appointed earlier

The applicants challenged this seniority list and the subsequent ad hoc promotion of direct recruits to Executive Engineer (EE)

1. Whether the period of ad hoc service rendered by the applicants prior to their regularization can be counted toward their seniority in the grade of Assistant Engineer.

2. Whether the seniority list dated February 19, 2025, placing direct recruits above the applicants, is legally sustainable under current service jurisprudence.

3. Whether one of the applicants (Anil Kumar) was barred from reagitating the matter due to the dismissal of a previous similar application.

Supreme Court ruling in Rashi Mani Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which established that ad hoc service rendered prior to regularization cannot be counted for seniority unless the rules expressly provide otherwise

Principle from K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, as implemented by the DoPT Office Memorandum dated August 13, 2021, stating that seniority must be reckoned from the date of actual appointment rather than the year of vacancy

DoPT OM dated April 10, 1989, which mandates that promotions resulting from delayed DPCs shall have only prospective effect

The Tribunal found that the applicants' initial promotions were purely ad hoc and subject to explicit conditions that such service would not confer rights to seniority or regular appointment

Applying Rashi Mani Mishra, the Tribunal reasoned that seniority only commences from the date of substantive appointment in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, which for the applicants was October 6, 2023

The court distinguished the applicants' reliance on Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, noting that the applicants' initial ad hoc appointments did not follow the regular DPC procedure prescribed by the rules

Furthermore, under the Meghachandra Singh doctrine, the direct recruits (appointed in 2018/2022) were legally entitled to seniority over the applicants (regularized in 2023)

The Tribunal also observed that the applicants failed to file objections to the provisional seniority list when invited to do so

Regarding the ad hoc promotion of direct recruits to Executive Engineer, the court accepted the respondents' justification of "administrative exigency" following the unification of the Municipal Corporation

It held that the applicants' seniority was correctly fixed from the date of their regular promotion (October 6, 2023) and that they could not claim seniority for the period served on an ad hoc basis

The final seniority list dated February 19, 2025, was upheld as being in consonance with prevailing DoPT instructions and Supreme Court precedents

Additionally, the Tribunal noted that applicant Anil Kumar's claim was barred by the principle of finality as his earlier OA on similar grounds had already been dismissed

No order as to costs was made