JUDGMENT H. S. Thakur, J.—In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure PB, dated 27-12-1966, whereby Shri Krishan Dev, respondent No. 4, was promoted as District Welfare Officer on ad-hoc basis, along with Shri Hakam Singh. The petitioner has not challenged the promotion of Shri Hakam Singh on the ground that in the seniority list as on 1-8-1970, he was at Serial No. 1 whereas the petitioner stood at Serial No. 2. The facts relevant to the decision of this writ petition may be stated. 2. According to the petitioner he joined service as temporary Assistant *Welfare Officer, in the erstwhile State of Pepsu, on 6-7-1950 and was appointed as quasi-permanent with effect from 6-7-1953. The State of Pepsu was merged with the State of Punjab and the services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal on the Government of Punjab. According to the petitioner he was placed in the joint seniority list prepared in 1956, at Serial No. 18. The petitioner made a grievance that though he was placed against the permanent vacancy and was holding a permanent post, he was not confirmed in his post neither by the Government of Punjab nor the Himachal Pradesh Administration, It is pointed out by the petitioner that in view of the mandatory provision of the rules known as the Punjab Welfare Department Class ill .Service Rule, 1962, be was entitled to be so confirmed. It is stated that the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, Himachal Bench, which was decided on 25-9-1969 and the petitioner was declared to be confirmed as a Tehsil Welfare Officer, with effect from 11-10-1966, A copy of the judgment is annexed as Annexure PA, to the writ petition, It is asserted by the petitioner that since be had not been declared to be confirmed, therefore, the Director of Welfare, Himachal Pradesh, by an order dated 27-12-1966 promoted respondent No, 4 and Shri Hakam Singh as District Welfare Officers, Simla and Kangra Districts respectively. Copy of the order which is impugned is Annexure PB, It is submitted by the petitioner that inspite of the protests and representations made by him, his grievances were not redeemed, The petitioner has filed a copy of the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner, as Annexure PC, According to the petitioner, in this letter the Joint Secretary, Welfare, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh informed the petitioner that actually these were not the promotions, but only charge of the post of District Welfare Officer bad been given to these employees. It i§ further averred that it was indicated in the letter that as and when the time comes, regular promotions would be made strictly in accordance with the rules. It is contended by the petitioner that when in the above mentioned writ petition the petitioner was declared to be permanent with effect from 11-10-1966, he immediately made a representation to the authorities that since he had become senior to respondent No, 4, he should be given his due rank and his ease be considered for promotion. The District Welfare Officer, however, by a letter Annexure pd dated 29-11-1969 wrote to the petitioner that the arrangement was purely temporary and the post would be filled in accordance with the promotion rules as and when they were finalised, The petitioner is stated to have preferred an appeal to the Secretary Welfare, Government of Himachal Pradesh, but be was informed by the letter dated 28-5-1970, Annexure PE, that the matter was under the consideration of the Government. According to the petitioner his appeal has not been decided so far. It is averred by the petitioner that though it was given out to him that the arrangement was not a promotion and the incumbent was only given dual charge, but by notification dated 3-2-1971, the respondent No, 4 bad been granted the pay scale of Rs. 200-500 with effect from 5-1-1907, the date on which be was promoted to the post. On this account, it is stated by the petitioner that it was definitely a use of promotion, and the monetary benefit was actually given the respondent No. 4 with a retrospective effect. 200-500 with effect from 5-1-1907, the date on which be was promoted to the post. On this account, it is stated by the petitioner that it was definitely a use of promotion, and the monetary benefit was actually given the respondent No. 4 with a retrospective effect. It is also pointed out that under me garb of making a temporary arrangement the respondent No, 4 actually bas been given benefit of promotion, whereas the petitioner was illegally ignored to be considered for the promotion, As such, it is stated by the petitioner that there has been a clear violation of the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3, In the return filed m behalf of the respondents, ft lifts been submitted that the respondent No, 4 was given only charge of the post of District Welfare officer, in addition to his own duties, as Tehsil Welfare Officer, It is also pointed out that this was a temporary arrangement and would not confer any right of promotion on these incumbents, no would it entitle them to the claim of seniority for appointment on regular basis, in the post of District Welfare Officer. It is significant to point out, to me contents of paragraph 7 on the return, wherein it bas been admitted on behalf of respondents that respondent Mo. 4 was granted a pay scale of the post of District Welfare Officer with effect from 5-1-1967. It is further submitted that the order to this effect was issued on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is further asserted that it was clearly mentioned in the order itself, that it was purely ad-hoc arrangement, and would not confer upon respondent No. 4, the right to claim seniority over his seniors or for regular promotion to the post of District Welfare Officer. A copy of the office order dated 3-2-1971 has been enclosed as Annexure R-II. It is relevant to reproduce this Annexure. It reads as under :-— "In partial modification of this office orders No. 1-11/66-Wei. Estt., dated the 2&th December, 1966 and dated 28th March, 1969 it is hereby ordered, on the recommendation of the D. P. C. that Shri K. D. Sharma, shall stand promoted purely on ad-hoc basis to the post of District Welfare Officer (non-Gazetted) in the pay scale of Rs. 170-350 (now revised to Rs. Estt., dated the 2&th December, 1966 and dated 28th March, 1969 it is hereby ordered, on the recommendation of the D. P. C. that Shri K. D. Sharma, shall stand promoted purely on ad-hoc basis to the post of District Welfare Officer (non-Gazetted) in the pay scale of Rs. 170-350 (now revised to Rs. 200-500 w. e. f. 1-2-1968) with effect from 5th Jan. 1967, the date from which he has been holding this post. This arrangement is on a purely temporary basis and it shall confer upon him no right to claim seniority over his seniors and regular promotion to the said post." A perusal of the above office order as contained in Annexure R-II shows that the respondent No. 4 has been ordered to be promoted on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been considered for promotion even though a Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted as contained in Annexure R-II. It is further contended by the learned counsel that assuming that the respondent No. 4 was promoted on ad-hoc basis, all the same, the petitioner was liable to be considered. He has referred to several decisions in support of his submissions. It is not disputed that the respondent No. 4 was not only given the additional charge of the post of District Welfare Officer, but he was also given the benefit of the emoluments of the higher post as indicated in Annexure PC. As such, it is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner has been deprived of his right to get the benefit, as given to respondent No. 4, who is admittedly junior to the petitioner. According to the respondents, the promotion even purely on ad-hoc basis, is stated to have been made on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee as reflected in office order Annexure R-II. If it is so, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion even on ad-hoc basis. In case the promotion was to be made as a stop-gap arrangement in the exigency of the service, without constituting a Departmental Promotion Committee, the position could be different. But in case the, Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted, the petitioner could not de deprived of his right to be considered for such promotion. In case the promotion was to be made as a stop-gap arrangement in the exigency of the service, without constituting a Departmental Promotion Committee, the position could be different. But in case the, Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted, the petitioner could not de deprived of his right to be considered for such promotion. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the promotion being purely on ad-hoc basis, the petitioner was not entitled to be considered. Shri P. N. Nag, the learned counsel for respondent No. 4, has referred to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in A. N. Bhoil v. Union of India and others, [1973 (2) SLR 726]. He has specifically referred to paragraph 69 of this judgment, in this paragraph, inter alia, it has been observed that it is not always that the, promotion in the normal sense can be made. A normal promotion is possible where normal conditions obtain. In the case of emergency or a sudden exigency, it may not be possible to consider the cases of all eligible officers and an ad-hoc appointment has to be contemplated. It is further observed that the principle of ad-hoc appointments can contemplate in its sweep cases of so> many different kinds. One may be a case where the need to appoint is so immediate that cases of all eligible candidates cannot be considered. Another may be a case where the conditions necessary for making an appointment in the normal sense have not yet settled and the settled structure is not expected to be available within the time permitted by the exigency for making the appointment. It is also observed that ad-hoc appointments are not uncommon. The exigencies of service necessarily contemplate them. On the basis of these observations, it is contended by Shri Nag that since the promotion was on ad-hoc basis, the petitioner could not extend the claim to his being considered. There can be no dispute about this proposition of law. The facts of the present case are, however, quite different. As observed earlier above, according to the respondents, the promotion of respondent No. 4 was made on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee. If it is so, it was necessary that the petitioner was also considered for promotion. There can be no dispute about this proposition of law. The facts of the present case are, however, quite different. As observed earlier above, according to the respondents, the promotion of respondent No. 4 was made on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee. If it is so, it was necessary that the petitioner was also considered for promotion. I had asked the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 to produce the record of the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee. No such record has, however, been produced. It is not the case of the respondents that ad-hoc promotion was made under some emergency or exigency of service. As such, the petitioner was liable to be considered for promotion even on ad-hoc basis as he was admittedly senior to respondent No. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain decisions in support of his contention that even if the promotion is made on ad-hoc basis, an eligible candidate is entitled to be considered. Keeping in view the facts of this case, and the view which I have taken on the basis of those facts, it is not necessary to refer to these decisions. 5. For the foregoing reasons I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the promotion of respondent No. 4 as contained in Annexure PB is liable to be quashed. The petitioner has not challenged the promotion of Shri Hakam Singh on the basis of Annexure PB, as he is senior to him. 6. The result of the above discussion and observations is that the pro motion of respondent No. 4 as contained in Annexure PB is hereby quashed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be considered for promotion from the date respondent No. 4 was so promoted even on ad-hoc basis, and in the event of his being so promoted, he shall be entitled to all the benefits of the post as given to respondent No. 4. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.