Ad Hoc Promotion in Excess of Quota Confers No Seniority Right, HP High Court Affirms

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal by a former HPSEB employee who sought seniority as Clerk from her 1991 ad hoc promotion, holding the stop-gap arrangement carried no legal right.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, led by Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi, on 21 May 2026 dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Salochna Devi, a former employee of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (HPSEB). She had sought to count her ad hoc service as Clerk from 28 June 1991 towards seniority, a claim that had already been rejected by the Board's authorities in 2010 and by a Single Judge of the same court in November 2025. The Division Bench found no infirmity in the Single Judge's reasoning and declined to take a different view, holding that a promotion made in excess of the prescribed quota and purely as a stop-gap arrangement confers no legal right to seniority.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Salochna Devi was promoted on an ad hoc basis to the post of Clerk on 28 June 1991. Her regular promotion to the same post followed on 17 November 1995. She claimed that the period between those two dates — over four years of ad hoc service — should be counted for the purpose of fixing her seniority in the Clerk cadre.

Her claim was rejected by the Secretary, HPSEB, Shimla, vide order dated 20 May 2010. She then approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. After the Tribunal's abolition, the matter was transferred to the High Court, where it was registered as CWPOA No. 3788 of 2019. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 17 November 2025, upholding the Board's order of 20 May 2010. Salochna Devi then filed LPA No. 317 of 2026 before the Division Bench. A delay of 169 days in filing the appeal was condoned at the outset, the court accepting the averments in the accompanying application supported by an official's affidavit.

Why the Ad Hoc Promotion Could Not Count

The Single Judge had identified two independent reasons for rejecting the seniority claim. The Division Bench examined both and found them sound.

First, the promotion of 28 June 1991 was made in excess of the prescribed 15% quota for Class-IV (Non-Technical Staff) in the promotional cadre. The Board had, in fact, promoted 143 Class-IV employees in excess of that quota up to 14 August 1990. A promotion made dehors the Recruitment and Promotion Rules cannot be treated as a regular promotion and cannot generate seniority rights.

Second, the appointment order itself contained an explicit clause. Clause 2 of the order dated 28 June 1991 stated that the offer was “purely on ad-hoc basis” and that the appointment “shall not confer any right on him/her to continue with the post or to claim seniority on any account.” The seniority of the appointee was to be fixed in accordance with the quota fixed for Class-IV employees, and the initial appointment being considered in excess of quota would have “no bearing whatsoever on this account.” The Division Bench held that Salochna Devi was well aware of the ad hoc exigencies on the basis of which the promotion had been granted.

The context for the ad hoc promotions was also on record. A ban imposed by the State of Himachal Pradesh on direct recruitment had created an acute shortage of Clerks in the Board. The promotions were made to meet that exigency, not as a regular exercise under the Rules.

The Claim for Instructions Dated 29 June 2002

During the proceedings before the Single Judge, Salochna Devi had raised a plea that the Board had issued instructions prescribing the manner in which ad hoc service was to be counted for seniority. The earlier writ petition, CWP No. 4653 of 2008, had been disposed of on 28 March 2010 with a direction to the Board to consider her case keeping that plea in view.

The Board's Secretary considered the matter and rejected the claim on 20 May 2010, recording that despite being given an opportunity to produce a copy of the instructions dated 29 June 2002, the petitioner had failed to do so. Before the Division Bench, her counsel conceded that there was nothing on record to show the existence of any such instructions.

The Division Bench applied the settled principle that no mandamus can be issued in the absence of statutory rules or a policy. With no instructions established on record, there was no basis on which the court could direct the Board to count the ad hoc period for seniority.

Precedents Applied

The Single Judge had drawn on four Supreme Court decisions. The Division Bench noted these without repeating the quoted passages. The decisions were Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and others, (1990) 2 SCC 715; Keshav Chandra Joshi and Others v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 272; State of West Bengal and others v. Aghore Nath Dev and others, (1993) 3 SCC 371; and Vinod Giri Goswami and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2020) 13 SCC 161. These authorities collectively establish that ad hoc or stop-gap promotions made outside the prescribed quota and contrary to the Rules do not confer seniority rights.

The Division Bench also noted a procedural bar that the Single Judge had identified: persons appointed as Clerks by way of direct recruitment and promotion between 28 June 1991 and 17 November 1995 had not been arrayed as party respondents. Granting the relief claimed would have unsettled their seniority and amounted to passing an adverse order behind their backs, which the court held was impermissible in law.

Outcome

The Division Bench found no infirmity in the Single Judge's order and dismissed LPA No. 317 of 2026. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The order was pronounced orally by Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia on 21 May 2026.