Ad-hocism in government promotions should be minimized, and timely promotions should be ensured through regular DPC meetings and adherence to established rules and norms.

( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of all the three writ petitions mentioned above as common question of fact and law is involved therein. However, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5742 of 1997 would be the leading petition.

( 2 ) THE main question involved in these petitions is as to what extent and how long the ad hocism in Government service will be tolerated ? The Government servants have legitimate expectations of their promotions. In case the promotions are not made on due dates, frustration creeps in resulting into inefficiency in the working. The ad-hocism or not appointing the eligible persons in accordance with Rules also produces arbitrariness. In this background these petitions will be disposed of.

( 3 ) THE main grievance of the petitioner in the leading petition is that he was appointed initially as panchayat Sewak on November 9, 1972, and on January 29, 1979 he has promoted on the post of assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) and he was confirmed and regularised on the same post on December 15, 1990. It appears that on August 12, 1996 petitioner was promoted as block Development Officer at Dhaula Devi Block in District Almora for a short term till a regularly appointed candidate replaces him. But the Commissioner has promoted persons junior to petitioner and has given financial and other powers to them whereas the financial powers given to petitioner have been withdrawn w. e. f. August 3, 1996. It is submitted that despite representation petitioners grievance has not been redressed.

( 4 ) IT may be mentioned at the outset that the sources of recruitment as mentioned in para 11 of the writ petition are as under: (The rules are called The State Development Service (Gazetted)Rules, 1992):

"5. Recruitment to the Service shall be made to posts in the ordinary grade from the following sources namely:- (a) by direct recruitment of candidates who having been selected on the results of a competitive examination held by Commission in the manner prescribed in Part V of these Rules and having successfully completed three months training as prescribed in Rule 21 of these Rules; (b) by promotion of the following categories of permanent officials:-Assistant development Officers, Agriculture, Co-operative, Panchayat-cum-Social Education, minor Irrigation, Senior Instructors of Extension Training Centres, Distt. Organiser Vikas Dal and officials equivalent in status to these posts in the department. "

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that similarly situated persons who were promoted in officiating capacity or on ad-hoc basis got interim orders from this Court to continue as Block Development Officers till they are replaced by regularly selected Block development Officers and in this regard reference has been given of Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 116 of 1996, Atar Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. , Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3506 of 1997, Dharamveer Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. Learned counsel further submitted that persons junior to petitioner are enjoying all powers of Block Development Officer and status of a gazetted officer whereas the same has been arbitrarily refused to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted with all fairness that the petitioners would feel satisfied if this court directs holding of D. P. C. within a fixed schedule for considering promotions of petitioners and other eligible candidates on the post of Block Development Officers. In view of the last submission made by learned counsel for petitioners it looks needless to refer other averments and prayers made in the writ petitions.

( 6 ) NOW we would like to refer the counter affidavit in which startling reply had been given. Vide para 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents it is submitted that the appointment on the post of Block Development Officer vests with the Government, therefore, suitable reply cannot be given. Vide para 14 of the counter affidavit it is submitted tha