Ad Hoc Service Counts for Seniority Where Promotion Was Within Quota and Later Regularised; State Cannot Deny Seniority for Its Own Failure to Consult Public Service Commission: Supreme Court

Case Name: State of Uttarakhand v. Jagdish Chandra Kandpal & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 29 July 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 759

Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe

Held: The Supreme Court held that consultation with the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission under Regulation 5(a) of the 2003 Regulations and the corresponding requirement under Rule 24(4) of the Uttaranchal Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005 is directory and not mandatory. Non-consultation by the State does not render an otherwise valid ad hoc or officiating promotion void, particularly where the employee had no control over the Government’s failure to make the reference. Where promotees were appointed within the promotee quota, continued uninterruptedly on the higher post and were subsequently regularly promoted, the proviso to Rule 24(4) entitles them to count the entire continuous officiating service for seniority.

Summary: The dispute concerned Tehsildars who were promoted ad hoc as Deputy Collectors because of an acute shortage of civil service officers in Uttarakhand. Their promotions were described as a stop-gap arrangement pending direct recruitment. They continued on the posts until they were regularly promoted with effect from 7 May 2012. Direct recruits to the Deputy Collector cadre, meanwhile, had been appointed in August 2009. The controversy was whether the promotees could count their service from 1 October 2007 for seniority.

Under the applicable Rules, Deputy Collector posts were divided equally between 50% direct recruitment and 50% promotion. Rule 24(4) specifically provided that where a person promoted on a temporary or officiating basis is subsequently approved by the Commission, the entire continuous officiating service rendered on a post within the promotee quota is to be counted. Regulation 5(a), however, contemplated consultation with the Commission where a temporary or officiating appointment continued beyond one year.

The Supreme Court held that the consultation requirement was directory. Relying on Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, Suraj Parkash Gupta, Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association and related precedents, it reasoned that treating the promotions as void because of the Government’s failure to consult the Commission would unfairly prejudice employees who had no control over the State’s inaction. The word “shall” was not decisive; the nature, object and consequences of the provision had to be examined.

The Court then examined whether the promotees were actually serving against vacancies within their quota. Official records showed that 19 posts were available in the promotee quota for recruitment year 2007-08, and material on record established sufficient vacancies for the impugned promotions. Since the promotees had continuously served from 1 October 2007 until regularisation and their appointments were within quota, they satisfied the proviso to Rule 24(4).

Decision: The Supreme Court held the promotees entitled to the benefit of regular appointment as Deputy Collectors with effect from 1 October 2007 and directed the State Government to issue a revised seniority list within three months.