CWP No.16675 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.16675 of 1990 Date of decision May 30, 2011 Hem Chand ....... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Gorakhpuria , DAG., Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner and counsel for the respondent is present and ready. The issue involved in the writ petition is whether the adhoc service as Steno-typist when the petitioner entered the service on 2.2.1973 is liable to be treated as relevant for the purpose of seniority and promotion when such service was subsequently made regular on 17.11.1976. 2. The State relies on two communications issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab to all the heads of department clarifying the position that if a government servant who is appointed on a purely temporary service is absorbed in a regular post it will CWP No.16675 of 1990 2 be relevant for the purpose of increment and leave but it will not be counted for seniority or promotion till the appointment is made on the recommendation of the Subordinate Service Selection Board. In this case, there has been a break in service after 1.8.1973 till 19.8.1973 and an adhoc appointment has been again issued on 20.8.1973 which post the petitioner had held on 16.11.1976. It was only subsequent to this date that he was made regular on 17.11.1976 on the recommendation by the Subordinate Service Selection Board. 3. In this case it must be noticed that the instructions issued by the State through Ex. R-1 and R-2 are themselves not in challenge. Unless there are specific recruitment rules which allow for counting of the adhoc service as relevant for promotion and seniority, the same cannot be granted to the petitioner as sought for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 30 , 2011 archana