JUDGMENT V. P. Gupta, J.—-The petitioner was appointed as a Statistical Assistant in the Department of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, in the year 1957. He was later on appointed as Statistical Assistant in the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Himachal Pradesh, in the year 1960 and was confirmed as such in May, 1966. By Office Order, dated 18th November, 1966 (copy Annexure P. 1), lie was promoted to officiate as District Statistical Officer, Kangra District, with headquarters at Dharamsala in the scale of Rs. 250-25-600 purely as a temporary measure on ad hoc basis. The petitioner is alleged to have joined this post {of District Statistical Officer on 29th November, 1966 in compliance to the order, dated 18th November, 1966. The petitioner continued to work on this post and by a notification, dated 13th December, 1971, (copy Annexure P 4) the Governor of Himachal Pradesh on the recommendation of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, promoted the petitioner to the post of District Statistical Officer (who was previously working on ad hoc basis) against the resultant vacancy caused by deputation selection of certain officers, it was further made clear by the said notification, that the petitioner will stand reverted to his original post in the event of reversion of the incumbents of these posts to their parent department and the reversion will be on the basis of juniority. A final seniority list of gazetted officers as on 1st June, 1972 was also issued on 8th June, 1972 (vide copy Annexure P". 7). The petitioner feeling aggrieved from the seniority list and the order of his promotion (as District Statistical Officer) vide notification, dated 13th December, 1971 instead of from the date of his ad hoc appointment, i. e. 29th November, 1966 filed a representation on 22nd November, 1972 (copy Annexure P. 14) but the same was rejected vide order, dated 6th March, 1973 (copy Annexure P. 16). 2. In this writ petition the petitioner has alleged that at the time of his promotion to the post of District Statistical Officer vide order, dated 18th November, 1966, the statutory rules, known as "Recruitment rules for the posts of (i) Statistician (ii) Research Officer and (iii) District Statistical Officers in the Department of Economics and Statistics, Himachal Pradesh Government9 had been enforced with effect from 9th March, 1965 vide notification, dated 13th August, 1965 (copy Annexure P. 2). According to the rules of 1965, the petitioner was qualified to hold the post of District Statistical Officer, and according to the petitioner he had been working in this post as District Statistical Officer to the entire satisfaction of the department. The actual words used in the writ petition are contained in para 4, which are reproduced below : "4. That the petitioner respectfully avers that the words "purely as a temporary measure on ad hoc basis" as used in the Office Order (Annexure P-l) were prima facie redundant for the reasons that the aforesaid statutory Recruitment Rules were in force at the relevant time, a Departmental Promotion Committee was in existence, the post was likely to continue indefinitely, the vacancy against the post had occurred in a proper routine, the filling of the post by promotion was expedient and exigent in public interest, the petitioner was due and eligible for promotion/appointment under the Rules and therefore he was promoted/appointed accordingly." It is further alleged by the petitioner that in any case his case was considered for regular promotion to the post of District Statistical Officer in 1971 (i. e. after a lapse of about 5 years) and as such he should have been regularised in the post of District Statistical Officer from ?29th November, 1966. It is alleged that on 29th June, 1971, he approached the department with an application that he be regularised on the post from 29th November, 1966, but to his utter surprise a notification was issued on 13th December, 1971 and he was not regularised from 29th November, 1966. It is alleged that once having been promoted to the post of District Statistical Officer in November, 1966, there was no occasion to promote/appoint him to the said post on 13th December, 1971 and that the said order was issued without issuing any show cause and the same is arbitrary and contrary to law and interest of justice. According to the allegations of the petitioner he should only have been regularised to his post from 29th November, 1966. 3. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the seniority list was issued and that instead of giving the petitioner his seniority at serial No. 13 he was shown at serial No. 16 in the said seniority list. According to the allegations of the petitioner he should only have been regularised to his post from 29th November, 1966. 3. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the seniority list was issued and that instead of giving the petitioner his seniority at serial No. 13 he was shown at serial No. 16 in the said seniority list. The petitioner alleges that respondent No. 2 (Shri J. C. Kalra), respondent No. 3 (Shri R. L. Gupta) and respondent No. 4 (Shri V. K. Malhotra) are shown at serial Nos. 7, 9 and 11 respectively, but their appointment are not in accordance with statutory rules prevailing at the relevant time. On these allegations he claimed his seniority above the aforesaid three respondents also. The petitioner further alleges that in view of the aforementioned circumstances he should have been shown at serial No. 10 in the seniority list and not at No. 16. 4. On the aforesaid allegations the petitioner has impugned the seniority list (copy Annexure P. 7) and the orders (copies Annexures P. 4 and P. 16) and has further prayed that he be deemed to be appointed to the post of District Statistical Officer from 29th November, 1966. This petition was filed by the petitioner on 10th September, 1973. 5. A reply to the writ petition was filed on :behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh (respondent No. 1), Shri R. L, Gupta ( respondent No. 3 ) and Shri B. B. Lal (respondent No. 6). 6. It is alleged by respondent No. 1 that the appointment of the petitioner as District Statistical Officer from 29th November, 1966 was on ad hoc basis, without making any-regular selection as required under the statutory rules and that the petitioner cannot claim any advantage due to this ad hoc appointment which was only a stop gap arrangement on account of the impending integration of services allocated from the composite Punjab. It is further averred that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on account of laches and delay. In reply to para 4 of the petition, the following reply was given : "Para 4 : The contents of para 4 are not admitted and the words purely as a temporary measure on ad hoc basis were aptly used in the office order, Annexure P-l to the Writ Petition in view of the circumstances explained in reply to para 3 above. The existence of a regular vacancy at that time did not confer any right on the petitioner for being appointed against it in a regular manner, unless the appointment is made in accordance with the provisions of the rules". It is further alleged that the selection for regular appointment to the post of District Statistical Officer in accordance with the rules and orders was made in November, 1971 after completion of the integration process, and that the orders contained in Annexure P. 4 are valid as they are passed by the competent authority and are based on the statutory provisions. It is further alleged that the previous appointment of the petitioner was not made in a regular way and no right was conferred on the petitioner by such ad hoc and a purely temporary appointment which was a stop gap arrangement. The seniority list is alleged to have been drawn in accordance with the instructions. It is further alleged that respondents 2 to 4 had been promoted in the year 1962 when the petitioner was not even eligible for the post of District Statistical Officer. The appointments of respondents I to 4 are stated to be valid and it is alleged that the same cannot be questioned by the petitioner. It is further alleged that the representation of the petitioner was rightly rejected and that the seniority list, Annexure P. 7, is in order. On these averments it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 7. Shri R, L. Gupta (respondent No. 3) also filed a return and alleged that the petitioner has suppressed and concealed the material facts by not showing that the post of the District Statistical Officer is a selection post. It is further alleged that the petition is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches because the appointments of respondents 2 to 4 were within the knowledge of the petitioner at least from 1963. It is further alleged that the process of recruitment of respondents 2 to 4 started in early 1961 and the petitioner could not be considered for such appointment at that time. It is alleged that respondents 2 to 4 have rightly been appointed/promoted to the posts. It is further alleged that the process of recruitment of respondents 2 to 4 started in early 1961 and the petitioner could not be considered for such appointment at that time. It is alleged that respondents 2 to 4 have rightly been appointed/promoted to the posts. It is further alleged in the return that the seniority given to the petitioner at serial No. 16 is correct and that there are, in fact, no grounds to grant any relief to the petitioner. 8. Shri B. B, Lall (respondent No. 6) in his return also raised similar objections as have been raised by respondents 1 and 3, and it is alleged that the appointment of the petitioner in 1966 was purely temporary and on ad hoc basis and this appointment did not confer any right upon the petitioner. It is further averred that no regular appointment could be made in November, 1966 because there was no interse seniority list at the relevant time and the petitioner could not be considered to be senior to the respondent (s). A provisional seniority list was prepared and circulated on 4th July, 1967 (copy Annexure R 6/3) and the same was finalised on 19th June, 1970 (Annexure R6/4). It is also alleged that it was only on 4th November, 1968 (copy Annexure R 6/1) that the rules with respect to recruitment and promotion were made applicable to Himachal Pradesh services. In view of the fact that there was no final seniority list prior to 19th June, 1970, no meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee could be convened for selection to the post of District Statistical Officer. It is further alleged that respondent No. 6 was fully eligible for promotion on 1st November, 1966, but he could not be considered because the case of final allocation of the employees from Punjab allocated to Himachal Pradesh was decided on 16th February, 1968 (copy Annexure R 6/5). According to the averments in the return the post of District Statistical Officer, Kangra, became substantively available to Himachal Pradesh Government on 16th February, 1968 only and as such there was no question of regularly promoting any person on 18th November, 1966. According to the averments in the return the post of District Statistical Officer, Kangra, became substantively available to Himachal Pradesh Government on 16th February, 1968 only and as such there was no question of regularly promoting any person on 18th November, 1966. It is also, alleged that in accordance with the letter, dated 14th February, 1967 (copy Annexure R6/6) and vida letter, dated 24th February, 1967 (Annexure R 6/7), no regular promotion could take place till the allocations were finally decided: and the interse seniority was finalised. It is also, alleged that Shri M- L. Kapur (respondent No. 5) was promoted on ad hoc basis with effect from 6th April, 1970 (vide copy Annexures R 6 8) but respondent No. 6 protested against this promotion (vide Annexure R 6/9) and Shri M.L. Kapur was thereafter regularly promoted in 1971 after finalisation of the interse seniority list. It is also alleged that the petitioner did not raise a little finger with respect to his ad hoc temporary appointment till June, 1971 and now he cannot say that this appointment was on regular basis. It is also alleged that the petitioner was duly considered in 1971 and was placed at serial No. 4. The petitioner has rightly been placed at serial No. 16 in the seniority list. On these allegations it is submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner should be dismissed. 9. No rejoinder was filed by the petitioner to the returns filed by the respondents. 10. I have heard Miss Kamtesh Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri H. K. Paul, Assistant to the Advocate-General for the State and Shri K. D. Sood, learned counsel for respondent No. 6. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was promoted vide order, dated 18th November, 1966 (copy Annexure P. 1) and he continued to, hold this post till the issuance of the notification, dated 13th December, 1971, i. e. for a period of about five years. It was contended that here could not be any ad hoc appointment for such a long period and at the time of the original promotion of the petitioner there was nothing to show that there was any urgency for filling up the post and that such an exigency could nut continue for a period of five years. It was contended that here could not be any ad hoc appointment for such a long period and at the time of the original promotion of the petitioner there was nothing to show that there was any urgency for filling up the post and that such an exigency could nut continue for a period of five years. On these contentions it was argued that the promotion of the petitioner in November 1966, was, in fact, regular and the word ad hoc has been unnecessarily used. The next contention of tae learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had already put in about five years service as District Statistical Officer in the year 1971 and was better placed than the respondents. In these circumstances there was no question of considering the case of the petitioner with that of the res- pondents and if the petitioner was found fit for being promoted to the post of District Statistical Officer in 1971, then he should have been regularised from the year 1966 in this post because he was holding this post from the year 1966 and was discharging his duties as District Statistical Officer. On these averments it was contended that the petitioner should be placed at serial No. 10 in the seniority list and not at serial No. 16V. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Ram Chand Saini v. Stale of Himachal Pradesh [(1976) I. L. R (Himachal Series) 655] and Kuldeep Chand Sharma and another v. Delhi Administration and another 1(1978) 2 S. L. R. 379]. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appointment of the petitioner was on ad hoc basis and as a purely temporary stop gap measure. It was also contended that there could not be any regular appointment in November, 1966 because several persons had been allocated to Himachal Pradesh and the matter of integration was in process. The cases of the persons allocated to Himachal Pradesh could not be considered for the purposes of promotion prior to their final allocation and the preparation of a final seniority list. The cases of the persons allocated to Himachal Pradesh could not be considered for the purposes of promotion prior to their final allocation and the preparation of a final seniority list. It was also contended that the post of District Statistical Officer is a selection post and the same could only be filled on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and no Departmental Promotion Committee could be convened prior to the preparation of the final seniority list of all tha employees who had been allocated from Punjab. The learned counsel further contended that this writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and the silence on the part of the petitioner. 13. I have carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records as well as the annexures appended with the writ petition. 14. It is an admitted fact that respondents 2 to 4 were appointed/promoted in 1962. This writ petition has been filed in 1973 and as such after a lapse of) 1 years the petitioner could have no grouse against the appointments/ promotions of these persons. The petitioner was appointed as Statistical Assistant in the Directorate of Economics and Statistics from 11th January, 1960 only. The seniority list had been circulated in December, 1963, July 1967, June 1970, July 1971, and June 19/2 as has been averred in the return affidavit of respondent No. 6. The petitioner had atleast knowledge of the appointments of respondents 2 to 4 from December, 1963. Therefore, to consider the case of the petitioner with respect to the appointments/promotions of respondents 2 to 4 is likely to create many departmental complications. In these circumstances the petition qua the appointments/promotions of respondents 2 to 4 is to be dismissed on the simple ground of delay and laches. The petitioner was promoted vide order, dated 18th November, 1966 (copy Annexure P. 1) purely as a temporary measure on ad hoc basis and he was to Officiate as District statistical Officer, District Kangra, with headquarters at Dharamsala. tt is true that the petitioner continued on this post for a pretty long time till a regular notification was issued on 13th December, 1971 (Annexure P. 4). tt is true that the petitioner continued on this post for a pretty long time till a regular notification was issued on 13th December, 1971 (Annexure P. 4). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not appointed on ad hoc basis has no force because the copy of the office order (Annexure P. 1) is very clear on this contention. It cannot be said that the words "purely temporary on ad hoc basis" used in (Annexure P. 1) are redundant. The petitioner even accepted this appointment/office order and joined the post on 29th November, 1966. The petitioner did not care to raise his little finger for his appointment on ad hoc basis till 29th June, 1971 when a representation was filed by him (copy of which is Annexure P. 3). Even in this representation the petitioner does not say that the word ad hoc used in (Annexure P. 1) is redundant. He had only requested that his case be considered for regularisation from the date of his promotion, i. e. November, 1966. In these circumstances the allegation of the petitioner that his appointment was not on ad hoc basis is without any force. 15. The other contention of the petitioners learned counsel that ad hoc appointment could not continue for a period of about 5 years has not been raised in the writ petition itself. In any case, in the peculiar circumstances which were existing in November, 1966, it cannot be said that this stop gap arrangement of promoting the petitioner on ad hoc basis could not be made. The Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966 came into force from 1st November, 1966 and some employees from outside the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh were allocated to the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh. This is evident from different columns of the seniority list (Annexure P. 7) that some officers have been allocated from Punjab to Himachal Pradesh. After the allocation of these officers to the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh, the work of their integration had to be completed and they had to be posted in the posts which were deemed to be equivalent posts. After the allocation of these officers to the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh, the work of their integration had to be completed and they had to be posted in the posts which were deemed to be equivalent posts. As the promotion of the petitioner was made on 18th November, 1966, therefore, it could only be a stop gap arrangement and it could not be assumed that the petitioner was senior to other persons, who had been allocated to Himachal Pradesh. Shri B B. Lall (respondent No, 6) who had been allocated to Himachal Pradesh even filed a representation on 20th December, 1966 (copy Annexure R 6/2) and challenged the ad hoc promotion of the petitioner, but it appears that this representation was never decided. As the work of integration of the different officers was to be completed and the process had to take some time therefore, a letter had been issued on 14th February, 1967 (copy Annexure R 6/6) that pending finalisation of the seniority list, no irrevocable changes should be made in the status of the Government servants so that complications may not arise, and it was further circulated (vide Annexure R 6/7) that provisional statistical list should be prepared. It may also be pointed out that the final allocation of the employees was done vide order, dated 16th February, 1968 (copy Annexure R 6/5) and a final seniority list was also prepared on 19th June, 1970 which pertained to the date 1st November, 1966. In view of the above circumstances if cannot be said that there were no exigencies in 1966 for making ad hoc promotions on purely temporary basis. As the work of integration took a sufficiently long time, therefore, the final seniority list of the persons could not be prepared prior to 1970 and for this reason there was no occasion to consider the names of the persons eligible for the selection post of District Statistical Officer, prior to 1970 (when the seniority list was prepared). It is also matter of common knowledge that the selection had to be made upon the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee and, therefore, this process was to take sometime for regular promotions. In these circumstances the order of promotion was made on 13th December, 1971 (vide Annexure P. 4). The petitioner has nowhere challenged the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee whereby the select list was prepared. In these circumstances the order of promotion was made on 13th December, 1971 (vide Annexure P. 4). The petitioner has nowhere challenged the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee whereby the select list was prepared. The conduct of the petitioner also shows that he was fully satisfied with his promotion as an ad hoc appointee on purely temporary basis till 29th June, 1971, when for the first time he wanted to be regularised from the back date. Hence in view of the above circumstances, the appointment of the petitioner on 18th November, 1966 to a selection post without considering the claims of other candidates and without the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee could only be ad hoc and as a purely temporary and stop gap arrangement. 16. In A. N. Bhoil v. Union of India, etc. [1913 I. L. R. (Himachal Series) 523] in similar circumstances, it was held : "The only conclusion possible is that the promotions recommended by the High Court and made by the Himachal Pradesh Government were ad hoc appointments. Appointments in the normal sense could not be contemplated because the integrated seniority of the judicial officers had yet to be determined, and a settled structure embodying the conditions for making such appointments was not yet available. As appointments in the normal sense were not possible it was not obligatory to apply the usual procedure of a comparative appraisal of the merit of all the eligible officers, and when there was no such obligation it cannot be said that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution were contravened." 17. The observations made in A. P. M. Mayankutty v. The Secretary and another, and P.V. Antony and others v. Union of India and otters [(1977) 2 Supreme Court Cases 360)] may also be read with advantage. I8. In Ram Chand Saints case (supra) it has been held : "An appointment does not become ad hoc simply because the appointing authority prefers to style it as such. It is the intrinsic nature of the appointment and not its label which determines its true character. I8. In Ram Chand Saints case (supra) it has been held : "An appointment does not become ad hoc simply because the appointing authority prefers to style it as such. It is the intrinsic nature of the appointment and not its label which determines its true character. If the Court finds that an appointment was necessary even though the rules of recruitment were not framed, or that even if the said rules were in existence, it was not possible to make it in compliance therewith for certain administrative reasons, the Court may treat the said appointment as ad hoc in character. It may be mentioned that Ram Chand petitioner had been promoted by a regular notification issued by the Governor in consultation with the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, and in such circumstances it was held that promotion of Ram Chand petitioner as Assistant Engineer was in regular course of things and was not falling outside the provisions of the rules, and as such the case of Ram Chand Saini (supra) is distinguishable. I have already stated that the circumstances prevailing m 1966 were such that the appointment could only be on ad hoc basis. 19. The authority, Kuldeep Chand Sharma and another (supra) is also distinguishable because in that case the question directly involved was of reversion from a post. It has also been held therein that ad hoc appointment does not affect the rights of those persons who were not considered for such appointment though within the range of eligibility. 20. In the light of the above facts, the petitioner could no be regularised from i96o because for appointing the petitioner to a selection post, a proper procedure had to be followed and claims of all persons was were eligible and were within the zone of consideration had to be considered. 21. No other point was urged before me. 22. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. -