or "stopgap". If a post is created to meet a situation which has
suddenly arisen on account of happening of some event of a
temporary nature then the appointment of such a post can aptly
be described as "fortuitous" in nature. If an appointment is made
to meet the contingency arising on account of delay in
P a g e 21 | 33
completing the process of regular recruitment to the post due to
any reason and it is not possible to leave the post vacant till
then, and to meet this contingency an appointment is made then
it can appropriately be called as a "stopgap" arrangement and
appointment in the post as "ad hoc" appointment. It is not
possible to lay down any strait-jacket formula nor give an
exhaustive list of circumstances and situation in which such an
appointment (ad hoc, fortuitous or stopgap) can be made. In
service jurisprudence, a person who possesses the requisite
qualification for being appointed to a particular post and then he
is appointed with the approval and consultation of the
appropriate authority and continues in the post for a fairly long
period, then such an appointment cannot be held to be "stopgap
or fortuitous or purely ad hoc". Therefore, the reasoning and
basis on which the appointment of the promotees in the Delhi
Higher Judicial Service in the present case was held by the High
Court to be "fortuitous/ad hoc/stopgap" are wholly erroneous
and, therefore, exclusion of those appointees to have their
continuous length of service of seniority is erroneous......"
Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association
v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(1990) 2 SCC 715] -