Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shiv Charan Sharma And 5 Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 17 February, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994(1)WLC433, 1994(1)WLN594
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners have questioned legality of the orders relating to promotions made on the post of Teacher Gr.II and the irreversion from the post of Teacher Gr.II to that of Teacher Gr.IlI. Since facts of the case are similar and common questions of law have been raised for determination, the only appropriate course for this Court is to decide all these writ petitions by a common order.
2. In order to appreciate the contentions of the petitioners, I deem it proper to make reference to few facts from each of the writ petitions.
3. In writ petition No. 222/94 Shiv Charan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. the petitioner has stated that he passed B.A. from the University of Rajasthan in the year 1978 and B.Ed. from University of Ajmer in the year 1988. He joined Government service as Teacher Gr.III on being appointed as such by the District Education Officer Jaipur I (Boys Institution), Jaipur. In the seniority list of Teacher Gr.III of district Jaipur, name of the petitioner has been included at serial No. 791/71-82. In the year 1991 an eligibility list of teachers, who were entitled to be considered for promotion for the year 1991-92, was prepared by the District Education Officer. In the list, name of the petitioner came to be included at serial No. 35. Names of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were not shown in the said list. On the basis of this eligibility list, orders dated 2.12.91 and 21.12.91 (Annexures-3 and 5) were issued for promotion of Teachers Gr. III to the post of Teacher Gr.II. Initially the petitioner had been denied promotion but by the second order he too was given promotion as Teacher Gr. II on ad hoc basis. In the year 1993 a Departmental Promotion Committee met and on its recommendation, orders dated 14.12.93 and 21.12.93 (Annexures-6 and 7) have been issued for promotion of Teacher Gr. III to that of Gr.II. Two other order dated 24.11.93 and 25.11.93 have been issued for reversion of some of existing Teachers Gr.II. Petitioner has been reverted by order dated 25.11.93 (Annexures 9).
4. Petitioner has pleaded that five persons junior to him in the category of ad hoc Teachers Gr.II have been allowed to continue although he has been reverted by order dated 25.11.93. He has also pleaded that Shri Narainlal, whose name appears at serial No. 3 in the order dated 21.12.93 (Annexure-7), has foregone his promotion. He has written letter dated 5.1.94 (Annexure-2) to the Head master of the school in this respect. Further case of the petitioner is that although a number of persons who were not eligible to be considered for promotion against the year 1991-92, although they were senior to the petitioner and they had in fact not been promoted in the year 1991 or 1992, have now been promoted despite being ineligible. He has stated that these persons have acquired the degree of B.Ed: in the year 1991-92 and yet they have been given promotion as Teacher Gr.II. Petitioner has also pleaded that one Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma (respondent No. 7), who stood transferred from district Jaipur to Alwar, has been included in the list of promoted teachers and if he is excluded from the list of promoted teachers, the petitioner is the next person to be promoted. According to the petitioner, by acting arbitrarily the departmental authorities have discriminated him qua other persons and have unlawfully reverted him from the post of Teacher Gr.II to that Gr.III.
5. In their reply respondent No 1 to 4 have stated that petitioner's name is at serial No. 791 in the seniority block of 1971-81. According to them, eligibility list ;published on 7.6.91 included names of all those teachers who had acquired B.Ed. qualification upto 31.3.91. On the basis of that eligibility list, ad hoc promotions were given to large number of teacher including the petitioner. No Departmental Promotion Committee had met and competent authority had issued the order primarily on the basis of seniority from amongst those who fulfilled the conditions of eligibility. Subsequently, Departmental Promotion Committee met and on its recommendations, promotions have been given against the yearly determined vacancies for various years. Those whose names were not included in the eligibility list published on 7.6.91, have been given promotion against the vacancies of subsequent years because after 31.3.91 such persons have also acquired degree of B.Ed, arid they are senior to the petitioner. Regarding retention of junior person, in the reply, respondents have stated that action is being initiated for their reversion. Respondents have denied the statement of petitioner that Narainlal has foregone his promotion. They have stated that no person junior to the petitioner has been promoted and persons who stood at seniority Nos. 31 and 94 in the block of 1971-81, have been selected from promotion against the vacancies of 1993- 94. In substance, respondent's case is that no person junior to the petitioner has been retained as Teacher Gr. II and that no senior ineligible person has been given promotion.
6. In writ petition No. 266/94 Ramesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. petitioner has stated that he joined service as Teacher Gr.III with effect from 1.2.73 in district Bharatpur. His name was included in the eligibility list prepared for district Bharatpur for promotion to the post of Teacher Gr.II. He was promoted as Teacher Gr.II by order, dated 17.3.92 (Annexure-2). His pay has also been fixed in the pay scale of Teacher Gr.II by order dated 8.6.92. Now on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee order dated 21.12.93 (annexure-3) has been issued reverting the petitioner from the post of Teacher Gr.II to that of Gr.III. This has been done in order to accomondate two ineligible persons, namely, S/Shri Sahib Singh and Raghunath Sharma, who, according to the petitioner, were not given promotion in the year 1992 because they did not have the qualifications of B.Ed. Now they have been given promotion as Teacher Gr.II and they are being allowed to continue. Plea of the petitioner is that reversion order has been passed without hearing him and the respondents have acted arbitrarily. Their action of reverting the petitioner is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 because ineligible persons have been retained in the service and more qualified persons, like the petitioner, have been reverted.
7. In reply, the respondents have not disputed the statement of facts made by the petitioner regarding his own service. They have however Contested the allegation of petitioner that two ineligible persons, namely, Sahib Singh and Raghunath Sharma have been given promotion. According to the respondents, Sahib Singh was appointed as Teacher Gr.III on 26.8.60 and his name appears at serial No. 1904 in the seniority block of 1956-61. He did his B.Ed. in the year 1991 and thus he became eligible to be given promotion in the quota of 1992-93. Departmental Promotion Committee has recommended his promotion as Teacher Gr.II against the vacancies of 1992-93. Raghunath Sharma was appointed as Teacher Gr. III with effect from 16.1.61. His name appears at serial No. 2232 in the seniority block of 1956-61. He did his B.Ed. in the year 1991 and thus he acquired eligibility to be promoted as Teacher Gr.II. The Departmental Promotion Committee has recommended his promotion as Teacher Gr. II against the vacancies of 1992-93. According to the respondents, no person junior to the petitioner except those belonging to Scheduled Caste, has been given promotion as Teacher Gr. II. In the seniority of 1981 block, petitioner's name appears at serial No. 278 and only one person namely Siaram, who belongs to Scheduled Caste quota, has been given promotion from the seniority of those years.
8. In writ petition No. 270/94 Devendra Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. the petitioner has stated that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1979. In the tentative seniority list prepared by the District Education Officer (Boys Institution), Jaipur, name of petitioner was included at serial No. 59. He was promoted as Teacher Gr.II by order dated 31.3.92 (Annexure-2). After more than a year and eight months of working as Teacher Gr.II, he has been reverted to the post of Teacher Gr.III by order dated 25,11.93. Petitioner has pleaded that his reversion is contrary to the principles of natural justice as well as Articles 14 and 16. A number of persons who were ineligible for promotion and whose names were not included in eligibility list of the year 1991-92, have now between given promotion and this has resulted in unlawful reversion of the petitioner.
9. Respondents have admitted the facts in so far as they relate to the petitioner and his promotion as Teacher Gr:II. However, they pleaded that promotion of the petitioner by order dated 21.2.92 was an ad hoc promotion. According to the respondents, reversion of the petitioner has been necessitated because of the availability of candidates selected by the DPC. No person junior to the petitioner has been promoted and no senior put ineligible person has been promoted. Departmental Promotion Committee has made recommendations for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and only senior persons have been given promotion against the yearly determined vacancies.
10. In writ petition No. 271/94 Ram Prasad Sharma and 4 Ors. v. State, of Rajasthan and Anr., the petitioners have stated that they joined service in the years 1978 and 1979 on being appointed as Teacher Gr. III. Names of the petitioners were included in the eligibility list published on 7.6.91. On the basis of this eligibility list they were promoted as Teachers Gr. II by order dated 30.1.92, 6.2.92 and 21..2.92 (Annexure-2 to 4). Some other persons had been promoted earlier by order dated 2.12.91. In, 1993 ten more persons were promoted by order dated 8.1.93 (Annexure-6). Now the petitioners have been reverted by order dated 25.11.93. Grounds of challenge raised in this writ petition are identical to those set out in writ petition No. 270/94 Devendra Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. and, therefore, it is not necessary to make detailed reference to the grounds set out in the writ petition. Reply of the respondents is also identical to the reply filed by respondents in writ petition No. 270/94. The only difference is that according to the respondents, name of petitioners appear down below in the seniority list and no person junior to them and or even senior but ineligible person, has been given promotion as Teacher Gr. II.
11. In writ petition No. 272/94 Gopi Chand Pushup v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr., petitioner Gopi Chand Pushup has stated that he was appointed in service by order dated 2.12.78. His name was included in the eligibility list prepared by the District Education Officer (Boys Institution), Jaipur at serial No. 39, which was published on 7.6.91. He was promoted as Senior Teacher by order dated 28.11.91 (Annexure-2). Other persons were also promoted by orders dated 2.12.91 and 8.1.93. Now he has been reverted by order dated 3.1.94 (Annexure-5), .Grounds raised in this writ petition as well as the averments made in the reply are identical to those contained in writ petitions No. 270/94 and 271/94 and, therefore, detailed reference to the grounds set out in the writ petition and the averments made in the reply to the writ petition is being avoided.
12. In writ petition No. 530/94 Heera Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. petitioner has stated that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1979. His name was included in the eligibility list prepared by the District Education Officer (Boys Institution), Jaipur- I, Jaipur. He was promoted as Teacher Gr.II (Senior Teacher) by order dated 21.2.92. Now he has been reverted to the post of Teacher Gr. III by an order dated 25.11.93 (Annexure-5). Other contents of the writ petition and reply are identical to those contained in writ petitions No. 270/94, 271/94 and 272/94 and, therefore, it is not essential to make reference to those averments and the grounds raised in the writ petition.
13. In support of the writ petitioners, Shri M.M. Ranjan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, argued that promotions accorded to the petitioners on the basis of eligibility list published on 7.6.91 were regular promotions and the petitioners had acquired a right to hold the post of Teacher Gr.II (Senior Teacher). Shri Ranjan submitted that candidature of all eligible persons had been considered against the available vacancies. Their suitability had been adjudged and then promotion orders were issued. The promotions had been made after considering the claim of eligible persons and the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-merit. Therefore, the petitioners must be deemed to have been substantively promoted as Teacher Gr. II, argued Shri Ranjan. He elaborated his argument by making a submission that once the petitioners have been appointed substantively as Teacher Gr. II, they have acquired a right to continue in service and there was no occasion or justification for the respondents to have considered their cases for promotion as Teacher Gr. II once again. Shri Ranjan submitted that promotions have been made in the year 1993 without proper determination of vacancies and without taking into consideration the eligibility list prepared in the year 1991. He further argued that before directing reversion of the, petitioners no action oriented notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. Shri Ranjan strenuously argued that action of the respondents in reverting the petitioners after they had served for more than a year and eight months, even without giving a minimum opportunity of hearing, has resulted in patent arbitrariness. He submitted that it is highly inequitable and unjust to revert the persons who were eligible in the year 1991 only for the purpose of accommodating those who did not fulfill the conditions of eligibility in the year 1991. Shri Ranjan submitted that the Departmental Promotion Committee as well as the respondent departmental authorities have contravened the provisions of Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules 1971 by their failure to determine the year wise vacancies and to make regular promotions against the year wise determined vacancies. Shri P.P. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner, argued that reversion of the petitioner from the post of Teacher Gr. II to that of Gr. III is patently unjust and arbitrary because the Departmental Promotion Committee had not applied its mind to the conditions of eligibility and even that person, namely, Mahesh Chandra Sharma, who stood transferred to Alwar district, has been given promotion in Jaipur district. Shri Sharma submitted that if Mahesh Chandra Sharma had not been given promotion, petitioner would have taken his place. Shri Sharma further argued that Narainlal has also given up his promotion and therefore, his vacancy is required to be filled by promotion and being the next senior most person, the petitioner has a legal right to be promoted. Shri P.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, made an additional submission that after the petitioner has worked for over one year and eight months, he has been reverted for the avowed purpose of accommodating regularly selected persons. Petitioner had been displaced from his earlier posting only in order to give effect to the policy of Government that on promotion a person is required to be transferred. If at all reversion of the petitioner is held to be justified, a direction should be given by the court to post him back in the place where he was working prior to his promotion.
14. Shri J.M. Saxena, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, has submitted that promotions accorded to the petitioners were ad hoc in nature and no right, much less a legal right, came to vest in them on the basis of such ad hoc promotion. He submitted that year wise vacancies have been determined for the year 1991-92 to 193-94 for district Dausa and for the years 1990-91 to 1993-94 for district Jaipur. Fir district Bharatpur, vacancies have been determined for the years 1991-92 to 1993-94. The Departmental Promotion Committee had met on 30.4.93. Fresh eligibility list had been prepared and placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee and only those persons who fulfilled the conditions of eligibility as on 1st April of the year for which selection was being made, had been considered. Shri Saxena submitted that no person who had lacked the minimum conditions of eligibility as on 1st April of the relevant year had been considered and promotions had been made on the basis of seniority -cum-merit and therefore, against the vacancies of different year senior most-eligible persons were considered for promotion who fell within the zone of consideration. He argued that a number of persons who were senior to the petitioners and who were in the seniority blocks of 1956- 61, 1961-66, 1966-71 and 1971-81, have 'been given promotion. Shri Saxena argued that when promotions have been made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit it could not have been possible for the Departmental Promotion Committee to recommend promotion of junior persons ignoring the claim of senior persons. Shri Saxena argued that person junior to any one of the petitioners has been given regular promotion on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee. He argued that when 'selected hands have become available for regular promotion, the petitioners, who had been earlier given ad hoe promotions, had to be reverted and no illegality has been committed by the respondents in passing the orders of reversion. Shri Saxena submitted that all those persons who were junior to the petitioner Shiv Charan Sharma and whose names have been mentioned in paragraph 8 of the writ petition, have been reverted. He, however, conceded that Mahesh Chandra Sharma stood transferred to district Alwar and, therefore, his name was erroneously included in the eligibility list prepared for Jaipur district. He submitted that after excluding the name of Mahesh Chandra Sharma, senior most eligible person will have a right to be promoted substantively as Teacher Gr.II Shri Saxena pointed out that those persons who are presently working as ad hoc Teacher Gr. II, are also senior to the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners, cannot complaint of violation of fundamental right of equality in the matter of employment.
15. The admitted facts which have come on record, are that eligibility list for promotion from amongst Teachers Gr. III to the post of Teacher Gr. II had been prepared and published on 7.6.91. On the basis of that list promotions were to be given to the persons who fulfilled the conditions of eligibility as on 1.4.91. This was the procedure adopted in district Dausa and Jaipur. Similar procedure had been followed in district Bharatpur. All those promotions given on the basis of elgibilily lists prepared in the year 1991 were without the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. As a matter of fact no D.P.C. was convened for making promotions in the year 1991. Learned Counsel for the petitioner have alleged arbitrariness in the action of respondents by arguing that year wise determination of vacancies have not been made in past and the Departmental Promotion Committee had not been convened. That may be so, but it is clear that no DPC has met in the year 1991 and all promotions made in 1991-92 of beginning of 1993 were made by the competent authority without recommendations of DPC. Provisions contained in part V of the 1971 Rules provide for detailed procedure which is required to be followed for regular promotions. This procedure envisages recommendations by the DPC before promotion could be made on regular basis. Therefore, it is clear that all the petitioners had been given promotions without following the procedure prescribed in Para V of the Rules and their promotions cannot but be termed as ad hoc/urgent temporary. A look at the orders of promotions also show that the same were made without prejudice to the seniority of other persons. The very fact that such a mention has been made in the order of promotion, shows that the promotions accorded to the petitioners were not regular promotions as contemplated by the Rules of 1971. Thus, it is not possible to uphold the contentions of learned Counsel for 'the petitioners that the petitioner's promotion should be treated as regular and they must be declared to be holding the post of Teacher Gr.II substantively. Logically, further argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had acquired a right to hold the post of Teacher Gr. II has to be rejected. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that a person who is appointed on ad hoc/urgent temporary basis, does not gut a right to hold the post and he has to make a room for accommodation of a regularly selected persons. This principle of law is applicable in the cases of direct recruitment as well as promotion. Thus, the first part of submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for petitioners, is rejected.
16. Other argument of the learned Counsel for petitioners relates to non compliance of the principles of natural justice. In my considered opinion, learned Counsel are not right in contending that orders of reversion of the petitioners are liable to be declared as void on the ground of valuation of the principles of natural justice. Rules of natural justice are attracted and are applied by the courts where an order or action of the State or its functionaries violates any vested right of a person or results in evil consequences. A person who is given ad hoc appointment, /promotion, does not have a right to hold that post in that capacity indefinitely. In its very nature, ad hoc appointment is of a limited duration. It is made in 'order to meet out a particular contingency. Ad hocism in promotion is resorted to because procedure for regular selection/appointment is not undertaken. However, mere failure of the competent authority to resort to the procedure of regular selection and appointment does not impliedly confers a right on an ad hoc appointee to continue on the post. As soon as regular promotions are made, an ad hoc appointee has to make room for regularly selected persons. When DPC has made recommendations and regularly selected persons are to be given promotion, displacement of the petitoners becomes a foregone conclusion. Reversion of the petitioners have been brought about wholly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and their reversion became imperative for the purpose of giving promotion to senior and regularly selected persons. Petitioners cannot complain of breach of any of their legal or fundamental rights. Likewise, they cannot complain that they have been condemned unheard. Principles of natural justice are not attracted where ad hoc appointee is reverted for the purpose of accommodating a regularly selected person. It would be a different situation if ad hoc urgent temporary appointee is reverted by way of penalty or where such reversion is founded on allegation of misconduct. That, however, is not the factual situation in these cases and, therefore, the second argument of the learned Counsel for petitioners also fails
17. In order to determine, the claim of petitioners that junior persons or senior but ineligible persons had been given promotion or had been retained in service, I would make reference to the record , which has been produced by Shri J.M. Saxena during the course of hearing. Revised eligibility lists for all the districts have been produced before the Departmental promotion Committee met to make its recommendations for promotion. These eligibility lists have been prepared for each year i.e. 1.4.90, 1.4.91, 1.4.92. On the basis of these eligibility lists, candidature of persons, who fulfill the conditions of eligibility and who fell within the zone of consideration, has been considered on the basis of seniority-cum-merit for the purpose of promotion to the post of Teacher Gr.II. Names of all the petitioners fall in the seniority block of 1971-81. A number of persons belonging to seniority blocks of the year 1956-61, 1961- 66, 1966-71 and even 1971-81, who were much senior to the petitioners and who fulfilled the conditions of eligibility and who fell within the zone of consideration, have beer recommended for promotion. In respect of senior person, the petitioners can hardly have any cause of grievance. Those persons whose names figure in the seniority block of 1956-61, had joined service more than decade and a half or decade prior to the entry of petitioners in service. Even those who belong to the blocks of 1961-66 or 1966-71 are senior to the petitioners by 10 to 12 years. These persons have been waiting for promotion in the queue for years together. They too had a right of consideration for promotion against the yearly determined vacancies. The Departmental Promotion Committee has applied the rule of eligibility strictly in accordance with the Rules. It may be that some persons were not included in the eligibility lists prepared in the year 1991 but if they acquired qualifications after 31.3.91 or 31.3.92 and they have been considered for the years 1992-93 or 1993-94, no fault then be found with the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee or the order issued by the competent authority promoting those persons. The court cannot be altogether oblivious of the fact that persons much more senior to the petitioners have been promoted. When criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-merit or seniority-cum-suitability, much more weightage is liable to be given to the seniority as against the suitability or fitness or even merit. A junior person may be more meritorious but he cannot supersede a senior person who fulfills the requirement of suitability. This principle has been aptly laid down by this Court in Ram Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1986(2) Judicial Surveyor 196, and reiterated in Het Ram Dudi v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 1992(3) WLC 726.
18. Petitioners have not shown that any person junior to them has been given promotion on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, nor they have shown that any senior person who docs not have the minimum qualification, has been given promotion against the years 1990-91, 191-92, 1992-93 or 1993-94. Even those who have been given urgent temporary promotions on the basis of recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee or otherwise, are senior to the petitioners. It cannot, thus, be said that the petitioners have been discriminated by being denied promotion as against, junior or ineligible persons.
19. Record shows that for district Dausa 16 vacancies were available for the year 1991-92, 14 vacancies were available for 1992-93 and 18 for the year 1993-94. For district Bharatpur, 34, 29 an 29 vacancies have been shown vacant for the years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively and for district Jaipur, number of vacancies shown to be available are 129, 60,31 and 38 for the yeas 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively. No person junior to the petitioners and who belongs to the general category, has been given promotion against the vacancies of these years. Thus, no arbitrariness or illegality has been committed by the Departmental Promotion Committee in making these promotions.
20. There, however, remain three points which deserve a mention. In the first place, grievance made by petitioner Shiv Charan Sharma regarding promotion of Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma has been admitted even by the learned Counsel for respondents. He conceded that Mahesh Chandra Sharma belongs to Alwar district and he has been erroneously included in the eligibility list of Jaipur district. Shri Saxena stated that now this error will be rectified by the departmental authorities. Another point which requires mention and which arises out of the argument of Shri P.K. Sharma is that when the petitioners or any one of them is being reverted to a lower post, they/he should be accommodated at the same place where was working prior to promotion. There is substantial justification in the submission of Shri P.K. Sharma. If the petitioners or any one of them had not been promoted, they/he would not have been displaced from the place of posting. They had to move from their places of posting in order to avail the promotion. If they are now being reverted, there is ample justification in their claim for their reporting at the place where they/he were/was working prior to their/his promotion. The third point which requires a mention is that against all the available vacancies which may have remained unfilled after the promotion orders were issued on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee which met on 30.4.93, appointment shall be made strictly on the basis of seniority from amongst those who are eligible. It is, therefore, reasonable to issue a direction to the respondents to make appointment against the available vacant posts by promoting those persons who fulfill the conditions of eligibility and if by that process petitioners or any one of them is found entitled to be promoted, he should be given such promotion without delay.
21. In the result, the writ petition are dismissed subject to the following directions:
(1) Against the vacancies which have remained unfilled in Jaipur district on account of non-joining of a promotee person or on account of displacement of Mahesh Chandra Sharma from the list of eligible persons of Jaipur district, should be filled by accommodating senior most suitable person. Case of Shiv Charan Sharma and other eligible persons should be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and if he is found to be senior most suitable person, he should be given retrospective regular promotion. His reversion order shall not be given effect to till action is taken in pursuance of this direction.
(2) Petitioner or any one of them who desires his posting at a place where he was working prior to promotion, should be posted back at the same place by way of accommodation.
(3) All unfilled vacancies of Teacher Gr.II should be filled by promotion only from amongst the senior most eligible persons. This exercise should be undertaken and completed within one month and the petitioners or any one of them who is found to be entitled of such promotion, should be so promoted. Eligibility should be determined with reference to 1.4.93 and those acquiring qualifications after 1.4.93 should not be considered. This direction shall not apply in respect of vacancies which may become available for the year 1994-95.
22. Before parting with the case, I would like to observe that holding of regular Departmental Promotion Committees and making of regular promotions is not only in the interest of employees but also in the interest of Government. Continued ad hocism in the Departments lead to unnecessary litigation in courts and bickering amongst the employees. This also results in frustration amongst those who are at the time given promotion on ad hoc basis and then reverted. The hopes which are aroused by ad hoc promotions are shattered with the promotion of regularly selected persons and ad hoc promotes are shunted out. Therefore, regular promotions should be made by yearly determination of vacancies and ad hocism should be resorted to only when it becomes a compelling necessity. Even if, ad hoc promotions are made due to compelling necessities, regular promotions must not be delayed for long and steps should be taken for making regular promotions at the earliest.