The Supreme Court has ruled that Deputy Collectors in Uttarakhand who were initially promoted on an ad hoc basis in 2007 are entitled to have that period counted for seniority after their promotions were later regularised. The Court held that the State Government could not deny the officers this benefit merely because it had failed to complete the required consultation with the Public Service Commission in time.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe delivered the judgment on July 29, 2026, modifying part of the Uttarakhand High Court's 2019 decision while allowing the appeal filed by the promotee officers.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from promotions made in 2007 when several Tehsildars were appointed as Deputy Collectors on an ad hoc basis because of an acute shortage of officers in the State administration. These appointments were described as temporary arrangements until regular recruitment could be completed. Later, direct recruits appointed in 2009 challenged the seniority claimed by these promotees, arguing that ad hoc service should not count for determining seniority.
The Uttarakhand High Court had earlier held that if vacancies existed in the promotee quota during 2007-08, the officers could receive the benefit of regular appointment from October 1, 2007. However, it directed the State Government to verify the vacancy position before revising the seniority list.
Aggrieved by different parts of the High Court's ruling, the State Government, direct recruits and promotees all approached the Supreme Court through separate civil appeals.
Court's Observations
The Supreme Court first examined whether the State's failure to consult the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission before extending the ad hoc appointments beyond one year invalidated those appointments.
The Bench held that the consultation requirement was directory rather than mandatory. It noted that while the Rules required consultation with the Commission, they did not provide that failure to do so would automatically invalidate the appointment.
The Court observed,
"It would not be fair to let the State take advantage of its own continuing default by treating the promotees' ad hoc appointment... as bad in law."
According to the Bench, the promotees had no control over the Government's failure to seek the Commission's approval within the prescribed period. Therefore, they could not be deprived of the benefits available under the service rules because of the State's procedural lapse.
Findings on Vacancies and Seniority
The Court then examined whether the promotees had been working within the quota reserved for promotion.
After reviewing official communications placed on record, the Bench found that 19 vacancies existed in the promotee quota for the recruitment year 2007-08, with 15 posts available to be filled through promotion. This, the Court said, clearly established that the officers had been promoted within the prescribed quota.
Rejecting the High Court's direction to conduct a fresh determination of vacancies, the Supreme Court held that the documentary evidence already answered the issue.
The Bench further clarified that its earlier ruling in Vinod Giri Goswami did not prevent the promotees from receiving the benefit because, in the present case, they had continuously served within the promotee quota until their regular promotion.
Supreme Court's Decision
Allowing the appeal filed by the promotee officers, the Supreme Court held that they are entitled to the benefit of regular appointment as Deputy Collectors with effect from October 1, 2007.
The Court directed the Uttarakhand Government to issue a revised seniority list of Deputy Collectors within three months. It also clarified that the judgment would not affect claims of officers promoted in subsequent years.
The appeals filed by the State Government and the direct recruits were dismissed, while the promotees' appeal was allowed.
Case Details
Case Title: The State of Uttarakhand v. Jagdish Chandra Kandpal & Ors. (With Connected Civil Appeals)
Judge: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
Decision Date: July 29, 2026
