SINGH, CJ. - (1.) THIS Special Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6087 of 1997 dated March 16, 1999, whereby the appellant was directed to consider the candidature of the respondent for promotion to the post of Warehousing Manager with effect from April 14, 1986 instead of June 22, 1990. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows :- On August 21, 1971, the respondent was appointed as Technical Assistant. Later, on August 22, 1987, he was promoted as Warehousing Manager on ad hoc basis without undertaking the process of selection. After about a decade, a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened for considering the cases of the Technical Assistants for promotion to the post of Warehousing Managers. On September 25, 1997, an order was issued promoting thirty-two Technical Assistants to the post of warehousing Managers with effect from April 14, 1986. The respondent, however, was not promoted with effect from the said date as he was not found fit for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The appellant issued another order on the same date viz. September 25,1997, whereby the respondent was promoted on regular basis to the post of Warehousing Manager with effect from June 22, 1990 on probation for a period of one year. The respondent was not satisfied with his promotion with effect from June 22, 1990 as he considered himself entitled for promotion with effect from April 14, 1986 when thirty-two Technical Assistants were promoted to the post of Warehousing Managers. Respondent in order to seek relief of promotion with effect from April 14, 1986, filed a writ petition, being SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6087 of 1997. The appellant resisted the writ petition on the ground that the respondent was not found fit for promotion with effect from April 14, 1986, due to adverse entries in his service record. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order dated March 16, 1999, allowed the writ petition by holding that as a result of the order dated August 22, 1987, whereby the respondent was promoted on ad hoc basis, the adverse entries in his service record prior to that date should be deemed to have been washed off and the said record could not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of his regular promotion. Consequently, the learned single judge directed the appellant to convene a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee for considering the candidature of the respondent for promotion to the post of Warehousing Manager with effect from April 14, 1996, without taking into consideration the adverse entries prior to August 22, 1987, the date from which the respondent was given ad hoc promotion. The appellant was also directed to consider the case of the respondent for promotion with effect from the aforesaid date as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months of the date of receipt of copy of the impugned order. The appellants being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single judge, have filed the instant special appeal.
(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Annual Performance Report for the period 1979-80 of the respondent, which was duly communicated to him, contained an adverse entry. Seven years' Annual Performance Report was required to be considered in respect of promotion of the candidates against the vacancy of 1986. Since the respondent had an adverse entry for the aforesaid period, namely, 1979-80 he was not found eligible for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Warehousing Manager. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent drew our attention to the fact that the respondent filed a representation against the adverse entry recorded in his Annual Performance Report for the year 1979-80. The adverse entry was expunged on consideration of the representation of the respondent. Since the adverse entry for the period 1979-80 was expunged, the same could not have been taken into consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee. To neutralise the effect of the submission advanced on behalf of the respondent, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for the period of 1981- 82 the Annual Performance Report of the respondent carried the following adverse entry : " Interest taken in diversified activities : Not satisfactory. " He pointed out that the respondent filed a representation against the aforesaid entry, but his representation was rejected. Therefore, the adverse entry for the period 1981-82, stayed in the service record of the respondent. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The entry could have been legitimately considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the purpose of considering whether or not the respondent was fit for promotion. But, it is not clear as to whether or not, the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the adverse entry for the period 1979-80 or the entry for the period 1981-82, for rejecting the candidature of the respondent for promotion to the post of Warehousing Manager. In case both these entries were responsible for rejection of the candidature of the respondent for promotion, then in that event, the matter undoubtedly requires to be examined afresh by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is difficult to say which of the entries played upon the minds of the members of the Departmental Promotion Committee for denying promotion to the respondent with effect from April 14, 1996. The learned Single Judge has held, to the effect, that once the candidate is promoted on ad hoc basis, the adverse entries will stand washed off. With great respect, we do not agree with the proposition enumerated by the learned Single Judge. An ad hoc promotion is always subject to the final selection which is made in accordance with the service rules. An ad hoc promotion is a temporary arrangement pending the final promotion. By and large, an ad hoc promotion is given to the senior most employee in service. It is normally not based on inter se merit of the candidates. In the instant case, the respondent continued on the post of Warehousing Manager on ad hoc basis right from 1987 until the order dated September 25, 1997 was passed, whereby he was promoted to the said post on regular basis with effect from June 22, 1990. Before his regular promotion, the respondent had already put in a decade of service as Warehousing Manager on ad hoc basis. Thus, the ad hoc promotion to the post of Warehousing Manager could hardly be considered as a stop gap or a temporary arrangement. In case where ad hoc promotion was to last for several years, it should be assumed that the service record of the promotee must have been considered, at least once during that period, to judge his suitability for continuing him in the post for so long. It seems to us that the adverse entry of 1981-82 was not considered so grave as to deny the respondent promotion to the post of Warehousing Manager, else he would not have been continued for a period of ten years on the said post on ad hoc basis. The question whether promotion on ad hoc basis will wash off adverse entry in the service record of an employee, will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case in hand, because of the fact that the respondent continued on ad hoc basis for a long period of time, we are of the view that the adverse entry of 1981-82 stood washed off and the Departmental Promotion Committee ought not to have considered the same for the purpose of denying promotion to the respondent. We have reached the same conclusion as reached by the learned Single Judge but the reasoning for the same is slightly different. However, since the conclusion we have reached is the same as that of the learned Single Judge, the order of the learned Single Judge is hereby maintained. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed. The Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider the case of the respondent afresh keeping in view the observations made hereinabove and having regard to the fact that the adverse entries of 1979-80 and 1981-82 stood expunged and washed off. .;