State's Default Cannot Defeat Employee's Service Rights: Supreme Court on Counting Ad Hoc Service for Seniority

Case Snapshot

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

Citation: 2026 INSC 759

Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe

Date of Judgment: July 29, 2026

Area of Law: Service Law, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Seniority

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by promotees and dismissed the appeals filed by the State and direct recruits, holding that promotees are entitled to count their ad hoc service for the purposes of computing seniority. The promotees were appointed as Deputy Collectors on an ad hoc/stop-gap basis on October 1, 2007, and continued in service until they were regularly promoted on May 7, 2012.

The Court held that the requirement of consultation with the Public Service Commission under Regulation 5(a) of the 2003 Regulations is directory, not mandatory, relying on the classic test laid down in Montreal Street Railway Co. v. Normandin and the consistent view of this Court in Manbodhan Lal Srivastava v. State of U.P.. The State's failure to consult the Commission for over several years could not be used to deny the promotees the benefit of Rule 24(4) of the Uttaranchal Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005, which provides that where a person's promotion is subsequently approved by the Commission, the entire continuous officiating service shall be taken into consideration for seniority.

The Court further found that 19 vacancies existed in the promotees' quota for the recruitment year 2007-2008, as evidenced by the Commission's communication dated April 16, 2012. Therefore, the promotees were appointed within their quota and were entitled to regular appointment with effect from October 1, 2007.

Relevant Facts

The Rules: The Uttaranchal Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005 (Rules) were notified on February 17, 2006. The cadre of Deputy Collector comprised 80 posts, with 50% filled by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from Tehsildars.

Initial Appointments: The promotees were originally appointed as Naib Tehsildars and confirmed as permanent Tehsildars on July 1, 2007.

Ad Hoc Promotions: On September 12, 2007, the DPC noted an acute shortage of Civil Service Officers and recommended 10 Tehsildars, including the promotees, for promotion to Deputy Collector on an ad hoc basis. The promotees were promoted on October 1, 2007, as a "stop-gap arrangement" until direct recruits reported.

Direct Recruitment: The direct recruits were selected and appointed in August 2009 pursuant to an advertisement dated December 26, 2004.

Regular Promotions: The Commission promoted 15 permanent Tehsildars to Deputy Collectors on April 8, 2010. The promotees filed a writ petition, and the Commission reviewed the promotions and promoted the promotees on May 7, 2012.

The Dispute: The promotees sought regular promotion with effect from October 1, 2007, and the deletion of the probation condition. The direct recruits opposed this, arguing that the ad hoc appointments were irregular and not made in accordance with the Rules.

High Court's Decision: The High Court held that the promotees were entitled to the benefit of regular appointment from October 1, 2007, but only if vacancies existed in the promotees' quota, leaving the question of vacancies to be examined by the State Government.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether Regulation 5(a) of the 2003 Regulations, requiring consultation with the Public Service Commission for temporary/officiating appointments exceeding one year, was complied with, and if not, the effect of non-compliance?

2. Whether the promotees are entitled to the benefit of proviso to Rule 24(4) of the Rules, which permits counting of entire continuous officiating service for seniority where the promotion is subsequently approved by the Commission?

3. Whet

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.