Ad hoc/Stop-gap Promotions Beyond Quota Do Not Confer Retrospective Seniority; Relief Denied Without Statutory Policy and Necessary Parties

1. Introduction

In SALOCHANA DEVI v. HPSEBL (Himachal Pradesh High Court, decided on 21-05-2026), a Division Bench (G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. and Bipin C. Negi, J.) dismissed an intra-court appeal (LPA) filed by Salochna Devi against Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. (HPSEBL).

The appellant’s core claim was for seniority as Clerk to be counted from the date of her initial ad hoc promotion (28.06.1991) up to the date she was regularly promoted (17.11.1995). The dispute arose because the ad hoc promotion was stated to be a stop-gap arrangement, made in excess of quota and not in accordance with Recruitment & Promotion (R&P) Rules.

The appeal challenged the Single Judge’s order (dated 17.11.2025 in CWPOA No. 3788 of 2019) which had upheld the Board’s rejection order (dated 20.05.2010) denying retrospective seniority and consequential benefits.

Key issues

  • Whether ad hoc service on a post, when the appointment/promotion is dehors the R&P Rules and beyond quota, can be counted for seniority.
  • Whether the Court can issue a mandamus to grant seniority/regularization in the absence of a proved statutory policy/instructions.
  • Whether relief affecting seniority can be granted when persons likely to be adversely affected were not impleaded.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Division Bench:

  • Condoned a delay of 169 days in filing the appeal (CMP No. 757 of 2026), and then
  • Dismissed the LPA, affirming that the appellant was not entitled to seniority from 28.06.1991, because:
  1. The ad hoc promotion was a stop-gap/exigency arrangement, in excess of quota and not in accordance with the R&P Rules.
  2. The ad hoc appointment letter expressly stated it would not confer any right to seniority and that regularization would be strictly as per R&P Regulations after regular recruitment.
  3. The appellant failed to establish the existence/content of any alleged instructions (e.g., dated 29.06.2002) requiring ad hoc service to be counted for seniority.
  4. Grant of retrospective seniority would unsettle the seniority of those recruited/promoted between 28.06.1991 and 17.11.1995, who were not made parties, making such relief impermissible.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

(a) Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (1990) 2 SCC 715

This foundational decision delineates when service on an officiating/ad hoc basis can be counted for seniority. Its central thrust is that seniority normally flows from regular appointment made according to rules. Where initial entry is not according to rules (or is a stop-gap arrangement), the period cannot be automatically credited for seniority.

The High Court’s approach aligns with this distinction: the appellant’s ad hoc promotion was not a rule-compliant regular appointment, but a temporary arrangement, and therefore could not be treated as the starting point for seniority.

(b) Keshav Chandra Joshi and Others Vs. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 272

This decision reinforces that ad hoc/officiating service does not ripen into a right of seniority unless the appointment is rooted in the rules and made against a sanctioned framework. It supports the proposition that courts should not convert temporary arrangements into permanent civil consequences like seniority, particularly when the initial arrangement was not rule-based.

(c) State of West Bengal and others Vs. Aghore Nath Dev and others (1993) 3 SCC 371

Aghore Nath Dev is frequently relied upon for the differentiation between: (i) irregular appointments (made within the power of the authority but with some procedural defect), and (ii) illegal appointments (made in clear breach of rules/without authority). The latter category cannot be used to claim downstream benefits such as seniority.

By noting that the appellant’s promotion was dehors the Rules and in excess of quota, the judgment implicitly situates the case within the zone where ad hoc service cannot be leveraged to claim seniority.

(d) Vinod Giri Goswami and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (2020) 13 SCC 161

This more recent authority reiterates restraint in granting retrospective service benefits where appointments were not made as per the governing rules, and cautions against judicial directions that effectively rewrite service conditions. The reliance on this case strengthens the High Court’s conclusion that retrospective seniority cannot be conferred merely because an employee worked on an ad hoc basis.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

  1. Rule-compliance and quota as the “gatekeeping” conditions for seniority:
    The Court accepted the factual premise that the ad hoc promotion was made beyond the prescribed quota (noting, inter alia, that 143 Class-IV posts were in excess up to 14.08.1990 and beyond the 15% quota for the category). This meant the ad hoc arrangement did not reflect a lawful, rule-governed pipeline for seniority fixation.
  2. Express disclaimer in the ad hoc promotion order:
    The judgment treats the appointment letter’s clause as decisive evidence of the nature of the arrangement: the offer was “purely on ad hoc basis”; services would be regularized strictly per R&P Regulations; and the ad hoc appointment would not confer any right to continue or claim seniority. This documentary term undercuts any equitable plea that “working on the post” itself should generate seniority.
  3. No mandamus without statutory rules/policy:
    A critical evidentiary point was the appellant’s inability to produce the alleged instructions (including the claimed instructions dated 29.06.2002) about counting ad hoc service for seniority. The Court reiterated that mandamus requires a legal right and a corresponding legal duty; absent a proven statutory rule or binding policy, the Court will not compel the employer to grant seniority.
  4. Non-joinder of necessary parties in seniority disputes:
    The Single Judge (affirmed by the Division Bench) noted that persons directly recruited or promoted as Clerks between 28.06.1991 and 17.11.1995 were not impleaded. Since granting retrospective seniority would necessarily disturb their position, granting relief would amount to passing an adverse order behind their back, which is impermissible.
  5. Service exigency (ban on direct recruitment) does not create enforceable seniority rights:
    The Court noted the contextual reason for ad hoc promotions—shortage due to a State ban on direct recruitment—yet held that such exigencies justify only temporary arrangements, not a transformation of those arrangements into permanent seniority benefits.

3.3 Impact

  • Service jurisprudence in Himachal Pradesh: The ruling consolidates the position that ad hoc promotions—especially those beyond quota or dehors R&P Rules— cannot be used to claim retrospective seniority, even if the employee later gets regular promotion.
  • Litigation strategy in seniority matters: The judgment underscores the necessity of impleading all likely affected incumbents where seniority re-fixation is sought. Failure to do so can be fatal irrespective of merits.
  • Evidence of policy/instructions: Employees relying on departmental circulars or past practices must be able to produce and prove the instructions. Courts are unlikely to infer policies that are not placed on record.
  • Administrative discipline for public employers: It encourages employers to ensure that stop-gap arrangements contain clear disclaimers (as here) and to adhere to quotas and R&P Rules to avoid downstream disputes.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Ad hoc promotion: A temporary promotion made to meet an immediate need; it is not the same as a regular promotion under the rules.
  • Stop-gap arrangement: A short-term administrative measure to keep work going until a regular process (recruitment/promotion) is completed.
  • Dehors the Rules: Outside the governing Recruitment & Promotion Rules; i.e., not made in the manner the law requires.
  • Quota: The fixed proportion of posts reserved for particular feeder categories (e.g., a percentage earmarked for promotions from Class-IV). If promotions exceed quota, they are treated as not conforming to the prescribed structure.
  • Seniority: The rank order among employees that affects promotions and other service benefits; typically determined by date and legality of appointment under rules.
  • Mandamus: A court direction requiring a public authority to perform a legal duty. It cannot be issued when there is no enforceable legal right or policy/rule duty.
  • Necessary parties: Persons whose rights will be directly affected by the court’s decision; they must be included in the case to satisfy fairness and due process.

5. Conclusion

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision in SALOCHANA DEVI v. HPSEBL affirms a settled but practically significant service-law rule: ad hoc/stop-gap promotions, especially those made beyond quota or not in accordance with R&P Rules, do not confer retrospective seniority. The Court also reinforces two procedural guardrails: no mandamus without proven statutory policy, and no seniority re-fixation behind the back of affected employees.

In the broader legal context, the judgment promotes rule-based public employment administration and discourages attempts to convert exigency-driven, expressly non-seniority-bearing arrangements into permanent seniority entitlements.