THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.1841 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Bhavani Prasad) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order in W.P.No.20335 of 2004 dated 02.09.2005. The Writ Petition was filed to declare the reversion of the petitioner from the post of Typist on ad hoc promotion to the substantive post of Watchman under the proceedings dated 22.07.2003, as illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, who was promoted as a Typist for a period of one year, claimed to have been reverted without any prior notice and many representations made by the petitioner resulted in no response. The learned Single Judge, while considering the claims of the writ petitioner, found that the petitioner was promoted as Typist purely on ad hoc basis for a period of one year and continuing even beyond one year i.e., till 29.04.2003 and he cannot be permitted to continue further. The learned Judge placed no reliance on the decision reported in V.R.Vishwanath Ramji Mjandare v. M.S.R.T.C.[1], wherein it was laid down that the order of reversion passed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority was not proper, due to absence of any extension of the ad hoc appointment and in view of the specific service regulation, the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. The writ petitioner herein challenges the same contending that clause 7 (3) (c) of the Regulations applies only to appointments but not to promotions and the Food Corporation of India could not have relied on such a provision in its Staff Regulations, 1971. The fact that the reversion order was not passed by the competent authority also should have been taken note of to declare the same as nonest and when the petitioner was promoted in a regular vacancy, he could have been continued as a permanent Typist. Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the appellant, and Smt.Pushpinder Kaur, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, were heard. The point for consideration is whether the order of reversion is unsustainable and if so, what consequential relief can be considered to be granted to the appellant in law. It is seen from the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971, that Regulation No.7 providing for the mode of appointment alone provides for a purely temporary appointment for a period not exceeding one year in Regulation No.7 (3) (c), but the procedures for promotion prescribed by Regulation No.10 do not speak of such ad hoc appointment/promotion, in case of regular employees of the Food Corporation of India itself. It is only the employees of the Central Government in the Directorate General of Food, posted in the Corporation that can be given ad hoc promotion under the note to Regulation 10. Otherwise, all promotions were provided to be made on the basis of seniority subject to fitness in respect of non-selection posts and by selection by a Promotion Board, in respect of selection posts on the basis of merit, seniority being considered only when the merit is approximately equal between the competing candidates. While the Regulations themselves do not provided for any ad hoc promotion, the Circular No.21/96 dated 05.06.1996 issued by the Corporation provides for making ad hoc promotions as a large number of posts are lying vacant in the Corporation and the Circular orders were not stated to be by way of amendment to the Staff Regulations made in exercise of the Statutory power under Section 45 of the Food Corporation of India Act, 1964, and the administrative instructions issued in the Circular could not have amended the Statutory Regulations. Even otherwise, even the administrative instructions obviously were intended to see that the regular/permanent posts are not vacant hampering the administrative work and para-8 of the Circular clearly states that the order making temporary promotion should specify that the promotion is purely temporary till the filling up of the post by the prescribed mode of appointment on regular basis. It is evident from the said paragraph and also subsequent paragraphs, which state that all ad hoc promotions have to be replaced by regular incumbents at the earliest opportunity, that the Corporation itself intended in modification of the Statutory Regulations to take recourse to its administrative power to make ad hoc promotions to the posts to be occupied by such ad hoc promotees till a regular appointment is made. The petitioner herein specifically claimed that except himself, all other ad hoc promotees were re-promoted and are being continued temporarily in the promoted posts and he also specifically contends that there are still clear vacancies in one of which he is continuing to work by virtue of the interim orders in force during the pendency of the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal. If so, the Fundamental Principles of natural justice would require that he should be continued in the post in which he is functioning on promotion on ad hoc basis till a regular appointment is made to that vacancy. The Circular instructions above referred to make it clear that such a reversion should be in the reverse order of the seniority and the petitioner also accepts through his learned counsel herein that he is ready to take his reversion in case a regular incumbent is appointed to the post which he is occupying, on being so liable to be reverted in the reverse order of seniority. Even otherwise, it is seen from the record that it is the Assistant Manager (Personnel) for the District Manager, that reverted the petitioner vide proceedings dated 22.07.2003, which are under challenge herein. But the orders of promotion on ad hoc basis were issued for the Zonal Manager on 26.04.2002. The principle laid down in V.R.Vishwanath Ramji Mjandare v. M.S.R.T.C. (1 supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case and consequently, the order of reversion cannot be sustained. Para-6 of the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition by the respondent itself shows that the petitioner was the 27th candidate in the short listed candidates and he is occupying a post, which was meant for Direct Recruitment. Therefore, the petitioner has to vacate the seat, if a regular incumbent is appointed. Subject to the same, the respondents suffer absolutely no prejudice or adversity by continuing the petitioner in the mean while, more so, when such continuance is there right from filing of the Writ Petition till now, for more than six {6} years. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The order in W.P.No.20335 of 2004 dated 02.09.2005 is set aside and the appellant/petitioner shall be continued in the ad hoc promotion post, so long as the regular vacancy is available and till a regular incumbent is appointed to that vacancy as per the Regulations in force. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ____________________ (G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 27th July 2010 RRB [1] 2001 (1) SLR 481