The Supreme Court has held that Deputy Collectors promoted on an ad hoc basis are entitled to count their continuous officiating service for determining seniority, provided their promotions were made within the prescribed promotee quota and were subsequently regularised. 

The bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe clarified that the State cannot deprive employees of seniority benefits merely because it failed to consult the Public Service Commission within the prescribed period, holding that such procedural lapse cannot prejudice officers who had no control over the Government’s inaction. 

The dispute originated after several permanent Tehsildars were promoted on an ad hoc basis as Deputy Collectors on October 1, 2007. Their promotions were made because the State was facing an acute shortage of Civil Service Officers and the process of direct recruitment through the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission was expected to take considerable time. Consequently, the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended temporary promotions as a stop-gap arrangement until regular recruitment could be completed. 

Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026

Although these officers continued to function as Deputy Collectors without interruption, their regular promotions were granted only on May 7, 2012. Meanwhile, candidates selected through direct recruitment joined service in August 2009, leading to a dispute regarding inter se seniority between the two groups. 

The promotees approached the Uttarakhand High Court seeking recognition of their regular appointment from October 1, 2007 instead of May 7, 2012, arguing that their uninterrupted officiating service should be counted for seniority. The High Court partly accepted their claim, prompting appeals before the Supreme Court by the State and the direct recruits. 

The principal questions before the Supreme Court were: Whether the State’s failure to consult the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission before extending ad hoc appointments beyond one year invalidated the promotees’ service. Whether the promotees were entitled to the benefit of Rule 24(4) of the Uttaranchal Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005, allowing continuous officiating service to be counted towards seniority after regularisation. 

The Court examined Rule 24(4) of the 2005 Rules along with Regulation 5(a) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Limitations of Functions) Regulations, 2003.

Under these provisions, an officer appointed temporarily or on an ad hoc basis cannot ordinarily continue beyond one year without consultation with the Public Service Commission. However, the proviso to Rule 24(4) grants the benefit of counting continuous officiating service if the promotion is later approved by the Commission and falls within the promotee quota. 

The Court found that although the State admittedly failed to consult the Commission before extending the ad hoc promotions, the omission was entirely attributable to the Government and not to the employees.

Relying on earlier Constitution Bench and Supreme Court precedents, including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, Suraj Parkash Gupta v. State of J&K, Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association, and P. Rammohan Rao, the Bench held that the consultation requirement is directory rather than mandatory. Consequently, failure to consult the Commission does not automatically invalidate an otherwise valid appointment or the service rendered thereunder. 

The Court strongly observed that permitting the Government to deny seniority benefits because of its own procedural lapse would result in grave injustice.

It held that the promotees had absolutely no control over the State’s prolonged failure to seek consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the Government could not rely upon its own inaction to deprive officers of the benefit specifically conferred under Rule 24(4). 

The Bench further noted that once the appointments were eventually regularised and approved, the earlier continuous officiating service could not be ignored solely because the prescribed consultation had not taken place within time. 

A significant aspect of the judgment was the Court’s factual determination regarding vacancies.

After examining official correspondence between the State Government and the Public Service Commission, the Bench found that there were 19 vacancies available in the promotee quota during the recruitment year 2007–08, with at least 15 vacancies specifically earmarked for promotion.

This finding directly contradicted the contention of the direct recruits and the State that the promotees had been appointed beyond their quota.

The Court therefore concluded that the promotees’ ad hoc appointments had in fact been made within the sanctioned promotion quota, thereby satisfying the essential condition under Rule 24(4). 

While the High Court had directed the State Government to determine whether vacancies actually existed in the promotee quota before granting retrospective benefits, the Supreme Court held that such an inquiry was unnecessary.

According to the Bench, the documentary record itself conclusively established the existence of sufficient promotional vacancies during the relevant recruitment year.

The Court accordingly modified the High Court’s judgment to this limited extent. 

Allowing the appeal filed by the promotees, the Supreme Court held that they are entitled to be treated as regularly appointed Deputy Collectors with effect from October 1, 2007, the date of their initial ad hoc promotion.

The Court directed the Uttarakhand Government to issue a revised seniority list of Deputy Collectors within three months.

It further clarified that the judgment would not affect claims of officers promoted in subsequent years, limiting its operation to the parties before the Court. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the State Government and the direct recruits were dismissed, while the appeal of the promotees was allowed.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: HC Can’t Deny Selection Scale Due to Missing ACRs Caused by Wrongful Discharge: Supreme Court