Ad-hoc promotions do not entitle officers to claim seniority from the date of ad-hoc promotion, and seniority should be based on actual regular promotion as per the statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

1. Regard been had to the controversy involved in the present writ petitions, they were analogously heard and a common judgment is being passed in the matter. The facts of W.P.(C.) No. 4765/2014 are reproduced as under.

2. The petitioners before this Court - who were Direct Recruits on the post of Women Sub-Inspector (Executive), have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 11.01.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Original Application (O.A.) No.979/2012.

3. The facts of the case reveal that an Original Application was preferred by the petitioners stating that they were appointed on the post of Women Sub-Inspector (WSI) Executive (E) as Direct Recruits on the basis of examination held in 1997 and 1998. However, certain Promotees - who were appointed earlier to the petitioners on ad-hoc basis and who were regularized later on by the Department w.e.f. 30.11.1995 - have been placed over and above the petitioners.

4. The present case is having a chequered history and the facts reveal that the respondents before this Court were granted ad-hoc promotion keeping in view Rule 19 of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980 to the post of Women Sub-Inspector in 1995. The ad-hoc promotion was subject to passing of training and Upper School Course.

5. The facts further establish that an Original Application, i.e. O.A. No.1556/1998 was preferred by the ad-hoc promotees seeking regularization of their promotion to the grade of Women Sub-Inspector from the date of their ad-hoc promotion. The CAT has passed the following order dated 10.08.2000 in the said O.A. No.1556/1998:

'The grievance of the applicants in the present O.A. is with regard to the order passed by the respondents dated 14.7.98 in which Women Sub-Inspectors (WSIs) (on adhoc), as per list attached, who stood on promotion list E-I (Exe.) (Women), were directed to report to the Deputy Medical Superintendent, Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, (Civil Hospital), Rajpur Road, Delhi for medical examination and for training in Upper School Course.

2. The applicants have alleged that they have already done the training along with SIs and have completed the initial training with syllabus of a much higher grade than those proposed to be imparted by the aforesaid order. They had sought an interim order to the effect that respondents may be restrained from deputing the applicants to go for Upper School Course training, till the disposal of the O.A.

3. In the Tribunal's order dated 11.9.98, it is mentioned that the learned counsel for the applicant had submitted that the first two reliefs prayed for in the O.A. have already been granted to the applicants and she does not want to press for Interim Relief. Further in the Tribunal's order dated 25.5.99 it is mentioned that, Mrs. Meera Chhibber, the then learned counsel for the applicants, had submitted that the interim relief as prayed for by the applicants has already been granted by the department itself.

4. None has appeared for the applicants even on the second call and none had also appeared on the previous date when the case was listed for hearing on 2.8.2000. Respondents have also filed their reply as far back as 25.8.98 and another reply on 30.11.98 to which we note that no rejoinder has been filed. 5. In the replies, filed by the respondents they have submitted that the WSIs have to undergo a refresher/re-orientation course with special emphasis on investigation and other topical subjects for a period of four weeks. They have further submitted that a decision will be taken in respect of the applicants as well as other WSIs for regularisation of their adhoc promotion. It is also relevant to note that the respondents have themselves stated that as the applicants have completed the training successfully, they are examining the issue. However, learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to produce any documents to show that a decision in this matter has been taken so far. 6