Court rules that ad hoc promotions do not confer rights to seniority or retrospective promotions; appeal dismissed.
In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Salochna Devi, who challenged the denial of seniority from the date of her ad hoc promotion in 1991 until her regular promotion in 1995. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi, upheld the decision of the Single Judge, affirming that ad hoc promotions do not entitle the petitioner to claim seniority or regularization retroactively.
The appeal arose from a writ petition initially filed before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, which was later transferred to the High Court following the tribunal's dissolution. Salochna Devi, represented by Advocate Vishal Singh Thakur, contended that her initial ad hoc promotion should be considered for seniority purposes. However, the court maintained that such promotions, made beyond the prescribed quota and outside the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, could not be counted for determining seniority.
The court cited precedents from the Supreme Court of India, including the cases of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and State of West Bengal v. Aghore Nath Dev, to emphasize that stop-gap arrangements do not confer legal rights to retrospective seniority or promotion. It further noted that granting the relief sought would disrupt the seniority of those directly recruited or promoted during the interim period, which is not permissible.
Additionally, the court highlighted that no statutory rules or policies supported the petitioner's claim, rendering any mandamus to alter her seniority untenable. The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no merit in deviating from the established legal principles.
Bottom line:-
Service Law - Ad hoc promotion beyond prescribed quota does not confer a legal right to claim seniority or retrospective promotion.
Statutory provision(s): Service Law, Recruitment and Promotion Rules, Mandamus
The judgment reiterates the principle that ad hoc appointments are temporary measures and do not create vested rights for seniority claims, reinforcing the importance of adhering to established recruitment norms and quotas.
Salochna Devi v. H.P.S.E.B.L., (Himachal Pradesh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2904964
