IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 287 of 2001 (S/B) Mohammed Haider. ……… Petitioner Versus Central Administrative Tribunal & others. ……… Respondents Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Advocate for the petitioner. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bisht, J. V.K. GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) Original Application No. 69 of 1995 was dismissed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench vide judgment dated 4th January, 2000 on a couple of grounds. First and foremost, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the period of ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner could not be counted and included while determining his seniority on two grounds. The first ground was that the appointment of the petitioner during ad hoc period was not in accordance with the Rules. It is a well established principle of service jurisprudence that if a person was appointed or promoted on ad hoc basis without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules, his service rendered during this period cannot be counted for determining the seniority. The second ground is that if the petitioner’s seniority was to be re-determined, that would have amounted to disturbing and re-fixing the seniority of several other persons, who were not made parties in the Original Application, apart from the fact that the same was sought to be done after the gap of 20 years. As far as the issue with respect to decentralisation of seniority was concerned, decentralization being done from Divisional to Sub- Divisional level, the Tribunal has taken the view that the decentralization order did not suffer from any error of law or fact. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that the Tribunal has taken a correct view with respect to the aforesaid aspects and the interference by this Court is not called for. The writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs. (V.K. Bist, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 04.11.2008 04.11.2008 G