The main legal point established in the judgment is that a government servant recommended for regular appointment by the UPSC while holding an ad-hoc position should be treated as regularly appointed from the date of UPSC's recommendation, as per the OM dated 01. 07. 1991.

P. K. BHASIN, J.

( 1 ) ORDER dated 10. 02. 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal') passed in OA No. 1973/2004 is being assailed by the petitioner since the Tribunal has dismissed his application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 wherein he had claimed the relief of counting of his seniority as Assistant director (Exhibition Cell) in the National Museum, New Delhi from the date of his ad-hoc appointment on deputation for the said post.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the OA by the petitioner before the tribunal and filing of this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India consequent upon the rejection of the OA are as follows:-'the petitioner was working as a Keeper (Publications) in the National museum w. e. f. 12. 12. 1989. That was a group 'a' Gazetted post in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 3000-4500. The National Museum was at that time under the department of Culture, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of india. The next higher post in the National Museum for the Keepers was that of assistant Director having the pay scale of Rs. 3700-125-4700-150-5000. As per the relevant rules applicable to the post of Assistant Director the said post could be filled by transfer on deputation basis failing which by direct recruitment. Although the petitioner was eligible for regular appointment to the post of Assistant Director he was appointed on deputation basis but that appointment was termed as 'ad-hoc' for a period of six months till that post was filled on regular basis, whichever was earlier. The petitioner accepted that appointment which was offered to him vide office order dated 01. 01. 1996 and he assumed the charge w. e. f. 02. 01. 1996 before the expiry of six months period of ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner the respondent no. 3 who was the Assistant director (Administration) in the National Museum vide his letter dated 03. 06. 1996 requested the Department of Culture for extension of the ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner for another six months. Same request was repeated by the respondent no. 3 vide his letter dated 17. 07. 1996. Since the Department of Culture did not respond to the said two requests the Director General of the national Museum wrote another letter dated 23. 08. 1996 requesting for extension of ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner. In that letter it was mentioned that the petitioner had been looking after the duties and responsibility of the Assistant director (Exhibition) in addition to his normal duties of Keeper (Publication ). Vide office memorandum dated 26. 5. 1998 the Department of Culture informed the petitioner that he had not been given extension as an Assistant Director after the expiry of his deputation period on 02. 07. 1996 but still he was writing his designation as Assistant Director (Exhibition Cell ). He would, therefore, remain a Keeper which was his substantive appointment. It appears that before the issuance of the said office memorandum dated 28. 05. 1998 the petitioner had filed OA No. 459/1998 before the Tribunal on 18. 02. 1998 alleging that the posts of Assistant Director (Exhibition) and Assistant Director (Administration) in national Museum were lying vacant for over five years and, therefore, the Govt. should be directed to complete the process of selection to the said posts in accordance with law and also to pay him the salary of the posts of Assistant director (Exhibition) w. e. f. 01. 01. 1996. It appears that during the pendency of that petition in the Tribunal the Government issued a notification dated 28. 10. 1998 extending the ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner to the post of assistant Director (Exhibition Cell) in the revised pay scale of Rs. 12000-16500 w. e. f. 01. 07. 1996 to 28. 05. 1998 and that notification also stated that the petitioner would stand reverted to his substantive post of Keeper (Public