In Brief
In this inter se seniority dispute between direct recruits and promotee Deputy Collectors in Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court held that promotees appointed on an ad hoc basis in 2004 without following prescribed selection procedures cannot count that service period for seniority purposes. Although the High Court had allowed the promotees' writ petitions, treating their ad hoc service as merely procedurally defective, the Supreme Court distinguished between stop-gap ad hoc arrangements (which exclude seniority benefits) and procedurally deficient regular appointments (which may qualify). The Court also upheld the Office Memorandum determining quotas, confirming that officers allotted to Uttarakhand must be included in quota calculations regardless of where they actually worked or retired. The appeals by direct recruits were allowed and the promotees' appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.