RAJESH KUMAR DHARMANI Vs. RAMESH CHANDERA CHAJTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether adhoc service followed by regular appointment will count for seniority is the short question arising for consideration in this appeal. The Appellants are the Respondents in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed challenging Annexure P-18, seniority list dated 22nd February, 2007, wherein the government had taken a stand that the adhoc/officiating service should count for seniority. The writ Petitioners are the directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police, under the Himachal Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1973 and the Respondents (Appellants herein) are the promote Deputy Superintendents of Police. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the adhoc/temporary/officiating service as Deputy Superintendent Police shall not count for the purpose of seniority and hence the appeal.

(2.) Though the learned Counsel on both the sides have extensively taken us through the factual position and legal proposition, in the nature of the view we propose to take in this judgment, it is not necessary to refer to all those contentions since on the un-disputed factual position we do not find any scope for interference, though for different reasons. In that view of the matter, we may refer to short facts.

(3.) All the Appellants were appointed during the period 1994 to 1999, purely on temporary basis. Annexure P-22 A series is the orders of appointment. Since the conditions of appointment are the same, we may extract the relevant part of first of such orders: