RAJESH SHARMA Vs. NEERU GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners came to be appointed as Lower Division Clerks. So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he came to be so promoted on 23rd of May, 1980. This was a purely temporary and adhoc arrangement. This was so stated in the order dated 23rd of May 1980, copy whereof is Annexure A to the petition, operative part of the order as it applies to petitioner No. 1 is being reproduced below: "Order: The following officials are promoted on a purely temporary and adhoc basis on the post indicated against each under the terms and conditions as mentioned in para 2 below.

(2.) THE above adhoc promotion will not bestow upon the above mentioned officials any claim to regular promotion to the post against which they have been promoted. The service rendered by them on adhoc basis in the posts will not count for the purpose of seniority in the grade nor of the eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade. These ad hoc promotion may be reserved at any time at the discretion of the competent authority with out assigning any reason there for. The official at S.No.1 will report to the Deputy Director Regional Census office Jammu and assume charge of the post there joining time transfer T.A. etc. and admissible under rules is also sanctioned in favour of Sh. Bal Krishan Bhat. The expenditure involved is debitable to the Head Al (I) Supet. Interference (Hon. Plan) (A.H. Khan) Director of Census Operations Jammu and Kashmir

(3.) SO far as petitioner Nos 2 and 3 are concerned they came to be promoted / appointed vide order dated 16th of May 1981. Copy whereof is annexure "C" to the petition. Similar stipulations were made in that order. The further fact is that the petitioners claims were considered by the departmental promotion committee. They were allowed to cross the efficiency bar. This order is dated 20th Nov 91. The petitioners submit that they are continuously working in the post of Lower Division Clerks and are getting the increments and other benefits. They further submit that they are being wrongly considered as adhoc arrangement employees.