IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1199 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17.5.2011 B.L.Lohia …Petitioner. Versus. Board of Directors, HRTC and others … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed that the respondents be directed to implement the order of the H.P.State Administrative Tribunal dated 17.08.2007 and to quash the order dated 6.12.2007 passed by the Managing Director, HRTC. 2. Admitted facts are that pursuant to the directions of the H.P.State Administrative Tribunal seniority list of Regional Managers in the HRTC was re-drawn and the petitioner Shri B.L.Lohia was assigned seniority above the private respondents S.P.Chatterjee and R.K.Dogra. However, the consequential benefits of grant of ad hoc promotion was refused to the petitioner on the ground that 2 the DPC which met on 27.11.2007 had graded the petitioner as good whereas S.P.Chatterjee and R.K.Dogra were assessed as very good. On this ground the petitioner was superseded. This order is under challenge. 3. The case of the petitioner is that while considering promotion on adhoc basis DPC could not have been constituted in view of the instructions issued by the State Government and the law laid down by this Court in Dr. V.K.Bhargava vs. State of H.P. and others, ILR (HP) 1985 (358). A Division Bench of this Court considered this question in the light of the instructions issued by the State of H.P. from time to time. The instruction dated 11th July, 1973 provides that when ad-hoc appointments have to be made regardless of the reason for making such ad- hoc appointment the same should be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit and barring those against whom vigilance cases are pending, irrespective of the duration of such ad-hoc appointments. This circular clearly indicates that while making ad-hoc appointments merit has not to be taken into consideration and seniority alone shall govern the field. Relevant portion of the instruction reads as follows:- “I am directed to say that ad-hoc appointments have to be made in various Departments either due to non-finalisation of recruitment rules or the seniority lists. Ad-hoc 3 appointments have also to be made sometimes when the panel/select list has been exhausted and preparation of the panel/select list has to take some time. In accordance with the instructions contained in this Department’s letter number Apptt. 1-350/57, dated 14th January, 1970, ad-hoc appointments which were likely to continue for more than 3 months used to be made by convening a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee, though ad- hoc appointments likely to be continued for 3 months and less were to be made without convening a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee. The matter in regard to the appropriate procedure to be adopted for making ad-hoc appointments has been engaging the attention of the Government for some time past. It has now been decided, in consultation with the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, and in supersession of all previous orders/instructions that all ad-hoc appointments, whatever may be the consideration for making such ad-hoc appointments, should be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit and barring those against whom vigilance cases are pending, irrespective of the duration of such ad-hoc appointments. This revised procedure may kindly be adopted with immediate effect. The adoption of this procedure, however, does not preclude consultation with the Public Service Commission wherever necessary.” 4. Second circular in this regard is dated 23.4.1985, which reads as follows:- 4 “I am directed to refer to this Department’s letter No.1-350/57-DP (Apptt.) Vol. III dated the 11th July, 1973 according to which all ad-hoc appointments (whatever may be the consideration for making such ad-hoc appointments) should be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. Now it has been observed that in certain R & P Rules either more than one feeder category for promotion to the next higher posts have been laid down or specific percentages for different qualification holders have been given. For example, the seniority list of Assistant Engineers in P.W.D. includes Graduate Engineers and Diploma holders. Though, their seniority list is combined yet in the R&P Rules for promotion to the posts of Executive Engineers, different percentages have been fixed for Degree holders and Diploma holder Asstt. Engineers. It has been decided that in such cases, while making ad-hoc appointments, the provisions contained in R&P Rules shall be borne in mind and that such ad-hoc appointments will be made in conformity with such rules.” 5. All that the second circular states is that if there are various feeder categories to the post(s), such as, diploma holders engineers, graduate engineers, etc. then, even while making ad-hoc appointments the respective quota of these categories must be respected. The second circular does not in any manner affect the first circular of 1973. When both the circulars are read together the only interpretation which can be given is that when ad-hoc 5 promotions are made from amongst a particular category then ad hoc promotion must be made strictly on the basis of seniority subject only to the condition that persons found unfit and the persons against whom vigilance cases are pending can be ignored. Merit cannot be assessed at the stage of making ad-hoc promotions. 6. In view of the aforesaid position, the petitioner could not have been denied ad hoc promotion on the ground that his juniors were more meritorious than him. The petition is, therefore, allowed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to grant of ad hoc promotion with effect from the date when his juniors were given the said promotion with all consequential benefits. However, this will not affect the promotion made on regular basis at a later stage. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 17th May, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.