2025:HHC:41670 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6999 of 2024 with CWP Nos. 6912 and 6989 of 2024 Reserved on: November 28, 2025 Date of Decision: December 4, 2025 1. CWP No. 6999 of 2024 Vikas Sharma …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh University and others ….Respondents 2. CWP No. 6912 of 2024 Ram Lal …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh University and others ….Respondents 3. CWP No. 6989 of 2024 Dinesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh University and others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Mr. Nitin Rishi and Ms. Shivani, Advocates, in all the petitions. For the Respondents: Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate, for respondent No.1, in all the petitions. Respondent No.2, ex parte, in all the petitions. Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate, for res- pondents Nos. 3 and 5, in all the petitions. Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate., for respon- dents Nos. 5 and 6, in all the petitions. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge: Since common facts and question of law are involved in all these pe- titions, same were clubbed and heard together and are now being disposed of vide this common order. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2025:HHC:41670 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were engaged as Stu- dent Paid Mess Helpers and thereafter, their services were brought on ad hoc basis, thereafter, regularized and lately, they were all were promoted to the higher post of Clerk, under 10% promotional quota. A detail of their ser- vice is as under: Name of pe- titioner Details of ini- tial appoint- ment Date of ad hoc appoint- ment Date of regu- larisation Date of pro- motion to next post Dinesh Ku- mar, peti- tioner in CWP no. 6989 of 2024 Mess Helper from Student Paid Fund on 10.7.2002, for a period of 89 days 16.9.2009 as Mess Helper on daily wages As Mess Hel- per vide office order dated 4.3.2014 As Clerk vide office order dated 1.1.2022 Ram Lal, pe- titioner in CWP No. 6912 of 2024 Do Do 29.7.2016 As Clerk vide office order dated 2.1.2019 Vikas Shar- ma, petition- er in CWP no. 6999 of 2024 Mess Helper from Student Paid Fund on 28.10.2002, for a period of 89 days Do Do As Clerk vide office order dated 1.1.2022 3. It is pertinent to note here that thereafter, the petitioners passed the typing test. It is also pertinent to take note here that the petitioners were as- signed seniority in the cadre of Mess Helpers on the basis of dates of their ad hoc appointments. 4. So far private respondents, who are same in all the petitions, are concerned, they were appointed as Peons in 2002 under Self Finance Scheme by the Director, Indian Institute of Himalayan Studies (IIHS). Ser- vices of private respondents were taken over on ad hoc basis by the res- pondent University on 10.10.2013 in the cadre of Peon and regularized on 11.10.2013, i.e. the very next day of taking over their services on ad hoc -3- 2025:HHC:41670 basis. However, they were promoted to the post of Clerk at a later point in time, than the petitioners, on the basis of their seniority in the cadre of Class IV employees, where they were shown junior to the petitioners. 5. Record reveals that the private respondents filed CWP No. 2349 of 2024 titled Kulbhushan Singh and another v. Himachal Pradesh University and CWP No. 1576 of 2024 titled Mukesh & Anr. v. Himachal Pradesh Uni- versity, seeking benefit of regularisation after completion of eight years of service and to consider their case for promotion from due dates. Both the petitions were disposed of with a direction to the respondent-University to decide the representations filed by respective petitioners. Pursuant to such direction, respondent-University vide office order dated 6.7.2024, reviewed the seniority list of class-IV ‘D’ categories employees, thereby reshuffling the seniority of petitioners and private respondents and private respondents were shown senior to the petitioners. Vide said order, the petitioners were reverted to the posts of Mess Helpers and private respondents were pro- moted to the post of Clerk on notional basis with effect from 1.1.2022, 1.5.2022, 1.7.2022 and 1.11.2022. It is against this order, that the petition- ers have approached this court in the instant proceedings, seeking following main reliefs, which are common in all the three petitions: “(i) That writ of Certiorari may kindly be issued and impugned Order dated 06th July 2024 ( Annexure P-11 ), whereby, the petitioner has been demoted from the post of the clerk (Class III) to the post of mess helper (Class IV) after a considerable period of more than two and half years in substitution of private respondents be declared illegal, arbitrary, capricious and in contravention to the Recruitment and Promotion rules, 1973 and hence, be quashed and set aside. -4- 2025:HHC:41670 (ii) Further, Writ of Mandamus be issued by directing the respondent authorities to maintain seniority list on the basis of approved services which includes regular/ contract/ ad hoc services as prescribed in the Recruitment and Promotion rules, 1973 and restore the promotion orders of petitioner from retrospective effect i.e. 1-1-2022 (Annexure P-5 ) with all consequen- tial benefits arising therefrom.” (reproduced from CWP No. 6999 of 2024) 6. Petitioners support their claim on the strength of rules notified by Hi- machal Pradesh University vide Notification dated 6th February, 1973, which prescribe for recruitment and promotion to the Himachal Pradesh Universi- ty, Ministerial and Administrative service, wherein under Part-I General un- der ‘Definitions clause, approved service has been defined as under: “Approved Service means the service in the University rendered on regu- lar basis including the service rendered on adhoc basis in the field of choice for promotion by an employee appointed by the competent authori- ty.” 7. Petitioners have also rest their case on the seniority lists maintained by the respondent-University, wherein, the respondent-University has shown petitioners senior to the private respondents in the cadre of Class IV employees. Petitioners’ claim is that their ad hoc service is required to be counted as ‘approved service’ for maintaining seniority and making promo- tions. 8. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of Clause 8 “Adhoc ap- pointees’ of Handbook on Personnel Matters Vol-I, which provides as un- der: -5- 2025:HHC:41670 “Persons appointed on ad-hoc basis to a grade without consultation with the HP PSC under Regulation 5 of the HP PSC (Exemption from Consulta- tion) Regulations, 1973, are to be replaced by persons approved for regular appointment by direct recruitment, promotion or transfer as the case may be. Until they are replaced such persons will be shown in the order of their adhoc appointments and below all persons regularly appointed to the grade. Explanation. While the seniority of persons appointed on ad-hoc basis will be deter- mined as indicated in sub para 8 above, the seniority list should clearly show that such persons are not eligible for promotion or confirmation.” 9. Before adjudicating the issue, it may be relevant to take note of the fact that the petitioners were brought on ad hoc basis in the respondent- University in 2009 and regularized in 2014 and 2016 and promoted in 2019 and 2022 as Clerks, whereas, private respondents were brought on ad hoc basis in the respondent-University from IIHS, on 10.10.2013 and imme- diately regularized on next day i.e. 11.10.2013. The claim of the respon- dents is that they ought to have been regularized in 2010, after completion of eight years’ service on daily wage basis and promoted from the date, their juniors were promoted. 10. The, question which falls for adjudication before this court is ‘whether ad hoc service is to be counted for determining seniority and whether ‘ap- proved service’ as defined in 1973 Rules is to be taken into consideration for maintaining seniority?” 11. If the reply filed by respondent-University is seen, their contention is that firstly they reviewed the promotions of petitioners in compliance to di- rection passed by this Court in writ petitions filed by private respondents -6- 2025:HHC:41670 and secondly, ad hoc service is to be counted for promotion, only when there is shortfall in regular service, otherwise as per Rule 8 of Handbook on Personnel Matters, ad hoc appointees are to be placed below in seniority list below regularly appointed candidates. 12. In view of above position, the petitioners were to be shown junior to the private respondents, since they were regularly appointed on 11.10.2013, whereas, petitioners were regularly appointed in 2014 and 2016, i.e. after the private respondents. 13. The issue, whether ad hoc service can be counted for determining seniority has been dealt by Madras High Court in Union of India v. Rago- thaman, W.P. No. 2290 of 2018 & WMP No. 2800 of 2018, decided on 27.2.2019, wherein taking note of various judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court, on the subject, it was held as under: “41. It is to be borne in mind that an 'Ad hoc Employee' is not regarded as a member of the cadre and as such, he has no claim of service rights including right to seniority to the post. At this stage, this Court aptly points out the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K.Trivedi V. Union of India, (1998) 9 SCC 58 wherein it is held that where there are Statutory Recruitment Rules prescribing a particular mode of selection regularisation of employment could be effected/made only after going through the rigor- ous of the prescribed selection process and no shortcut to avoid it is per- missible. 42. At the outset, it is to be remembered that the word 'Ad hoc' is a Lat- in term and whenever an appointment is stated to be an Ad hoc Appoint- ment, it is purely a 'Transitory Appointment' or a fortuitous or a stop gap one. In short, the said Appointment is not a regular appointment and does not confer an indefeasible right on the holder of the post as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pooswamy M. V. Union of India, 1978 (2) -7- 2025:HHC:41670 SLR 334. Moreover, an 'Ad hoc Appointment' is an appointment for special and particular purpose to last for a particular period, as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.Vasudeva V. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 SC 2292. 43. Suffice it for this Court to point out that the concept of 'Ad hoc Ap- pointment' is that in an exigency, regular appointment by conducting ex- aminations and holding interviews etc. is not possible due to shortage of time and till such time a regular appointment is made, an Ad hoc Appoint- ment is made because of the exigency of an Administration. Also that, an 'Ad hoc Appointment' is made to a post but not to a cadre/service and is al- so not made in accordance with the provisions of the Recruitment Rules for 'Regular Appointment' as per decision State of Rajesthan V. Jagdish Na- rain Chaturvedi, AIR 2010 SC 157. 44. At this stage, this Court aptly points out the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J & K Public Service Commission V. Dr.Narinder Mohan, AIR 1994 SC 1808 at special page 1813, wherein it is mentioned that 'A lit- tle leeway to make Ad hoc Appointments due to emergent exigencies does not clothe the executive Government with the power to relax the Recruit- ment Rules nor to regularise such appointment nor to claim such appoint- ments to be regular or in accordance with rules'. http://www.judis.nic.in 45. http://www.judis.nic.in 45. Apart from that, this Court refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Su- preme Court in State of Haryana and others V. Shakuntla Devi, AIR 2009 Supreme Court 869, wherein it is observed as follows: “A Government employee enjoying a status indisputably must be recruited in accordance with Rules. The Family Pension Scheme in terms of paragraph 3 thereof is applicable to all regular employees in pensionable establishment, temporary or permanent who were in service. Thus, whether temporary or permanent, the employee must be regular employee which would mean employee appointed on a regular basis, i.e., in accordance with Rules. Ad hoc appointee is thus not entitled to family pension only because services of ad hoc employee was continued. Continuation of ad hoc employee would not mean that thereby his status has been changed. The status of an employee can only change either by reason of a contract or by reason of a statute.” -8- 2025:HHC:41670 14. The substance of above judgment is that ad hoc service is a tempo- rary arrangement and such service cannot be counted for determining se- niority. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that such service cannot be counted for determining seniority when such appointment is not as per rules. 15. So far the contention of the petitioners that the ‘approved service’ as defined in Rules, 1973 includes ad hoc service also, and thus, their seniority ought to have been determined by counting ad hoc service rendered by the petitioners, is concerned, this court is not persuaded to agree with the same. ‘Approved service’ can be determined by adding ad hoc service, but only for promotion, that too, when there is a shortfall in regular service, but that would not mean that it would also count for determining seniority. Oth- erwise also, recruitment rules provide for method of selection and not me- thod of maintaining seniority, for which reference is to be made to the Gov- ernment orders issued on the subject. 16. In view of above, this court finds that the respondent-University has not committed any error, while reviewing the seniority and promotions of pe- titioners and private respondents. 17. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have been working with the respondent-University since 2002, though initially from stu- dent paid fund and thereafter on ad hoc basis from 2009 to 2014/2016, and after being promoted to the post of Clerk in 2019/2022, considerable time has elapsed, it would be too harsh a step to revert the petitioners to lower post. -9- 2025:HHC:41670 18. Therefore, to balance the equities, it is directed that the petitioners shall rank junior to the private respondents, but they shall not be reverted to the post of Mess Helper. The respondent-University is directed to either re- tain the petitioners against the posts of Clerks, which may be available with them or for this purpose, create supernumerary posts. All the petitions stand disposed of in afore terms. Pending applica- tions, if any, in all the petitions, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 4, 2025 (Vikrant)