Ad hoc Appointment and Promotion: Definition and Important Legal Insights
An ad hoc appointment typically refers to a temporary position created to address specific tasks or projects, usually lasting until the completion of that task.
This process allows for Swift adaptation to changing demands without the lengthy recruitment processes associated with permanent roles.
The process for an ad hoc appointment usually involves identifying a suitable candidate from existing staff or external sources.
Organizations may follow internal guidelines to ensure fairness and transparency. Key steps include defining the role’s responsibilities, setting criteria for selection, and obtaining necessary approvals.
Legal considerations are paramount in both ad hoc appointments and promotions.
Important Legal Precedent on Ad hoc appointment
Here are some important decisions of the Hon’ble Court across the court on the subject of ad hoc appointment and promotion.
i) Ad hoc appointment is not made in terms of the requirements of the Rules. The benefit is extended to avoid stagnation. In case of ad hoc employees, stagnation is till the regularization is made. … Ad hoc employee has no right to the post and ad hoc appointment does not count for seniority.
State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi,(2009) 12 SCC 49,
17. When the ad hoc appointment is under a scheme and is in accordance with the selection process prescribed by the scheme, there is no reason why those appointed under the scheme should not be continued as long as the scheme continues. Ad hoc appointments under schemes are normally coterminous with the scheme (subject of course to earlier termination either on medical or disciplinary grounds, or for unsatisfactory service or on attainment of normal age of retirement). Irrespective of the length of their ad hoc service or the scheme, they will not be entitled to regularization nor to the security of tenure and service benefits available to the regular employees. In this background, particularly in view of the continuing Scheme, the ex-serviceman employed after undergoing the selection process, need not be subjected to the agony, anxiety, humiliation and vicissitudes of annual termination and re-engagement, merely because their appointment is termed as ad hoc appointments.
18. We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that the process of termination and reappointment every year should be avoided and the appellants should be continued as long as the Scheme continues, but purely on ad hoc and temporary basis, coterminous with the Scheme. Circular…. directing artificial breaks by annual terminations followed by fresh appointment, being ….. contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence, is liable to be quashed.
Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. Director General of Police,(2009) 6 SCC 611,
iii) When an ad hoc appointment is made, the same must be done in terms of the rules for all purposes. If the mandatory provisions of the rules had not been complied with, in terms of Direct Recruit the period shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of reckoning seniority. Furthermore, it is one thing to say that an appointment is made on an ad hoc basis but it is another thing to say that inter se seniority would be determined on the basis laid down in another rule.
Union of India v. Dharam Pal,(2009) 4 SCC 170,
33. It is not necessary to notice all the decisions of this Court on this aspect. By and large what emerges is that regular recruitment should be insisted upon, only in a contingency can an ad hoc appointment be made in a permanent vacancy, but the same should soon be followed by a regular recruitment and that appointments to non-available posts should not be taken note of for regularization. The cases directing regularization have mainly proceeded on the basis that having permitted the employee to work for some period, he should be absorbed, without really laying down any law to that effect, after discussing the constitutional scheme for public employment.
Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3),(2006) 4 SCC 1,
The termination of the ad hoc appointment of these petitioners by substituting another batch of ad hoc appointees must be held to be illegal.
Ajay Kumar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa,(2003) 1 SCC 707,
Institutions not filling vacancies for a long time develop the culture of ad hocism. Sometimes not filling is for a coloured purpose to favour one or the other. This has to be denounced. This not only permits irregular appointees to continue for a long time but thwarts a regularly competent appointee to come in, deteriorating the very standard of the institution. This brings in internal struggle to appoint or continue one or the other ad hoc appointees leading to inter se contest in courts, as in the present case taking large cake of time in the courts.
Chandgi Ram v. University of Rajasthan,(2001) 10 SCC 556
If an appointment is made to meet the contingency arising on account of delay in completing the process of regular recruitment to the post due to any reason and it is not possible to leave the post vacant till then, and to meet this contingency an appointment is made then it can appropriately be calle as a “stopgap” arrangement and appointment in the post as “ad hoc” appointment. It is not possible to lay down any strait-jacket formula nor give an exhaustive list of circumstances and situation in which such an appointment (ad hoc, fortuitous or stopgap) can be made. As such, this discussion is not intended to enumerate the circumstances or situations in which appointments of officers can be said to come within the scope of any of these terms. It is only to indicate how the matter should be approached while dealing with the questions of inter se seniority of officers in the cadre.
20. In service jurisprudence, a person who possesses the requisite qualification for being appointed to a particular post and then he is appointed with the approval and consultation of the appropriate authority and continues in the post for a fairly long period, then such an appointment cannot be held to be “stopgap or fortuitous or purely ad hoc”.
Whether a person holds a particular post in a substantive capacity or is only temporary or ad hoc is a question which directly relates to his status. It all depends upon the terms of appointment. It is not open to any government employee to claim automatic alteration of status unless that result is specifically envisaged by some provision in the statutory rules. Unless, therefore, there is a provision in the statutory rules for alteration of status in a particular situation, it is not open to any government employee to claim a status different than that which was conferred upon him at the initial or any subsequent stage of service
State of M.P. v. Dharam Bir, (1998) 6 SCC 165
It is well settled that when ad hoc appointment is made dehors the Rules, the said appointment would not enure to the benefit of the appointee for the purpose of determining the seniority in the cadre.
P.K. Singh v. Bool Chand Chablani, (1998) 5 SCC 726
We are of the view that the appellants having been appointed in relaxation of the Rules their appointments have to be treated under the Rules. When the appellants were appointed under the Rules even the ad hoc period, which is continuous, has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixation of seniority in the cadre of Typists.
Raj Kishore Vishwakarma v. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 619,
“… the initial appointment of Shri Pillai by way of ad hoc arrangement was not made by following the procedure laid down by the Rules as referred to in Condition B in the said decision (Direct Recruit Class II (1990) 2 SCC 715)
Chief of Naval Staff v. G. Gopalakrishna Pillai, (1996) 1 SCC 521
Constitution Bench in Rudra Kumar Sain v. Union of India, (2000) 8 SCC 25,
As is often said, the State must be a model employer. It is for this reason, it is held that equal pay must be given for equal work, which is indeed one of the directive principles of the Constitution. It is for this very reason it is held that a person should not be kept in a temporary or ad hoc status for long. Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long the court presumes that there is need and warrant for a regular post and accordingly directs regularization. While all the situations in which the court may act to ensure fairness cannot be detailed here, it is sufficient to indicate that the guiding principles are the ones stated above. The principles relevant in this behalf are stated by this Court in several decisions, of which it would be sufficient to mention two decisions having a bearing upon the issue involved here. They are Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka and Jacob M. Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority.
State of Haryana vs Piara Singh (1992) 4 SCC 118
Ad hoc promotion:
37. We may furthermore notice that this Court in D.N. Agrawal v. State of M.P (1990) 2 SCC 553 has categorically held that ad hoc promotion without following the recruitment rules would not lead to any right for computation of seniority.
R.K. Mobisana Singh v. Kh. Temba Singh, (2008) 1 SCC 747
It is well settled that promotion in excess of quota makes an employee an ad hoc employee and seniority cannot be given to such employees on the basis of ad hoc promotion. This was observed by this Court in a series of cases. In Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India, this Court observed that: (SCC pp. 283-84, para 24)
“24. It is notorious that confirmation of an employee in a substantive post would take place long years after the retirement. An employee is entitled to be considered for promotion on regular basis to a higher post if he/she is an approved probationer in the substantive lower post. An officer appointed by promotion in accordance with rules and within quota and on declaration of probation is entitled to reckon his seniority from the date of promotion and the entire length of service, though initially temporary, shall be counted for seniority. Ad hoc or fortuitous appointments on a temporary or stopgap basis cannot be taken into account for the purpose of seniority, even if the appointee was subsequently qualified to hold the post on a regular basis. To give benefit of such service would be contrary to equality enshrined in Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution as unequals would be treated as equals. When promotion is outside the quota, the seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota, rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotees it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits. The rule of quota being a statutory one it must be strictly implemented and it is impermissible for the authorities concerned to deviate from the rule due to administrative exigencies or expediency. The result of pushing down the promotees appointed in excess of the quota may work out hardship but it is unavoidable and any construction otherwise would be illegal, nullifying the force of statutory rules and would offend Articles 14 and 16(1). Therefore, the rules must be carefully applied in such a manner as not to violate the rules or equality assured under Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court interpreted that equity is an integral part of Article 14. So every attempt would be made to minimise, as far as possible, inequity. Disparity is inherent in the system of working out integration of the employees drawn from different sources, who have legitimate aspiration to reach higher echelons of service. A feeling of hardship to one, or heart burning to either would be avoided. At the same time equality is accorded to all the employees.”
Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P.,(2006) 10 SCC 346,