WP(C) 4086/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA.. Both the writ petitions being interconnected have been heard together an d are being disposed of by this common order. I have heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.4086/2009 as well as Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel representing the petitioner in WP(C) No.4762/2009. I have also heard Ms R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are aspirants for promotion t o the post of Officer-in-Charge in the establishment of the Handloom Research & Development Centre. The petitioner in WP(C) No.4762/2009 had earlier approached the Assam Administrative Tribunal by filing Appeal No.14 ATA of 2006. The clai m made in the appeal was to count his seniority from the date of initial appoint ment and/or taking over charge of the feeder post of Textile Chemist under Regul ation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Function) Regul ation, 1951. The selection committee, which was constituted for considering the cases of the incumbents for promotion to the aforesaid post had recommended one Sri Anil Patgiri, who unfortunately before could be promoted, expired. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 30.4.2008, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for counting adhoc/temporary period of service towar ds seniority, directed the authority to conduct a fresh selection for the afores aid post in view of the expiry of said Patgiri. In terms of the said judgment an d order, now, the petitioner in WP(C) No.4086/2009 ranked senior to the petition er in WP(C) No.4762/2009. The selection committee is now required to consider th e case of all eligible incumbents in terms of the relevant Rules/Executive Instr uctions. After the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, the selec tion committee held its meeting on 27.7.2009 for different posts, but for the sa id post of Officer-in-Charge, did not make any recommendation in view of the pur ported conflict between Order 8 and Schedule-II of the Assam Handloom Textile (R ecruitment & Promotion) Service Orders, 1988. The selection committee has urged the Government to amend the Service Rules so as to complete the process of sele ction for promotion to the said post. As per Order 8 of the aforesaid Service Order, 1988, the selection shall be made on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority, personality and cha racter, tact, energy and general intelligence, integrity and previous record of service. Thus, Order 8 of the Service Orders lays down the procedure for promotio n, in terms of which the aforesaid post is to be filled up on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority and other criteria indicated therein. Schedule-II to the said Orders, dealing with the aforesaid promotional post of Officer-in-C harge, Handloom Research & Development Centre provides that for promotion from R esearch Officer/Textile Chemist of HRDC , according to seniority. It is this exp ression according to seniority which is sought to be interpreted to be a conf lict with the aforesaid requirement of Order 8 of the Orders, in terms of which the promotional post is to be filled up on the selection on merit with due regar d to seniority and other criteria. According to the petitioner involved in WP(C) No.4086/2009, he being the senior-most in the category of Research Officer/Textile Chemist should be promo ted taking his seniority alone. On the other hand, according to the petitioner i nvolved in WP(C) No.4762/2009 taking his seniority into account, even for the ad hoc period, he should be treated as senior to the petitioner in WP(C) No.4086/20 09 and his case is required to be considered on that basis as per the provisions of the said Service Orders. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the entire materials on records. I do not find any infirm ity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the adhoc service of the petiti oner involved in WP(C) No.4762/2009 cannot be counted towards seniority. Law in this regard is well settled, in terms of which the adhoc service rendered before selection for regular appointment cannot be counted for seniority. The appointm ent of the petitioner prior to his selection by the Assam Public Service Commis sion being under Regulation 3 (f) of the aforesaid Regulation, he is not entitle d to count his seniority for the said period but his seniority will have to be c ounted from the date of appointment pursuant to regular selection stated to be 2 7.5.1995. This now leads us to the question as to how the selection for the said p ost is to be made. Order 8 of the Service Orders clearly lays down the procedur e for selection process. Such selection is to be made on the basis of merit wit h due regard to seniority and also taking into account other criteria laid down under Order 8 (b). The purported confusion is a self-created one inasmuch as apa rt from the fact that Order 8 of the Service Orders deals with the criteria for promotion, the aforesaid expression according to seniority appearing in Sche dule-II to the said Orders means only consideration of the cases of the incumben ts applying the said criteria from amongst the Research Officers/Textile Chemist s, according to seniority. In view of the above and also in view of the settled position that in ab sence of any Service Rules, Executive Instructions/Service Orders can be taken i nto consideration for effecting promotions of the petitioners coupled with the a foresaid explanation to Service Orders, 1988, I am of the considered opinion tha t it was not necessary for the selection committee to refer the matter to the Go vernment for preparation of the Service Rules towards consideration of the cases of the petitioners for promotion to the aforesaid promotional post. For all the aforesaid reasons, both the writ petitions are disposed of d irecting the respondents to implement the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and to draw the select list for appointment of the aforesaid promo tional post on the basis of the aforesaid Service Orders, 1988 and consistently with the observations made above. It will be appropriate to mention here that th e direction of the Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order to the department is to take fresh steps for filling up the posts by the senior-most and eligible candidates as per the said Service Orders. Since the post involved is a selecti on post and is required to be filled up by way of selection on the basis of the criteria laid down in Order 8 (b) of the Service Orders, 1988, it will be inapp ropriate to say that the post should be filled up by the senior-most and eligibl e candidates. To that extent the said observation of the Tribunal stands interfe rred with, with the direction that the post shall be filled from amongst eligibl e candidates applying the criteria laid down under Order 8 (b) of the said Ser vice Orders. Now, the selection committee shall conduct the selection as expeditiousl y as possible, preferably within 31st March, 2011 and thereafter, necessary foll ow up action will follow.