JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS Petition highlights a prevalent trend in administrative hierarchy of making ad hoc appointments and promotions, thereby causing clamour and rancour amongst employees, who feel wronged by such ad hoc appointments and promotions and also feel deprived of their legitimate rights of being promoted, more after than not the spirit of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is marauded in the name of ad hoc appointments. If the spirit of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution is to have its say and play and a meaningful purpose in matters of public employment, the sooner the respondent State realises that ad hoc promotions have also got to be regulated by certain well-settled norms and principles uniformally applied without any discrimination and not as largesse conferred on the chosen few, better it is for the State as well as the employees. ( 2. ) THE other aspect which arrests attention is the adverse entries made in the character roll of a Government servant, which ought to be made with all seriousness and representations submitted against them are attended with promptness. The directions issued in this behalf are to be rigidly followed. The General Administrative Department as back as in 1977 by its Circular No. D/372-1037/1/377 dated 8-9-1977 provided for a scheme of timings, which enjoins upon the authority concerned to dispose of the representations within three months from the date of receipt thereof. In the instant case the petitioner having submitted his representation on 19-8-1974 against an adverse entry for the year ending 31st March, 1974, which was communicated to the petitioner, the representation which as per instructions should have been disposed of within three months, i. e. by 19th November, 1974, in spite of repeated reminders, could not be disposed of by the authorities and the height of the crude absurdity is reached when the respondents in their return dated 4-9-1981 stated that the petitioner would be informed of the decision on the representation shortly. It is a travesty that the period indicated as shortly has not yet completed in spite of a lapse of almost 31/2 years. It is this adverse entry, which has resulted in deprivation and denial of the petitioners claim to be promoted. The role these adverse entries play and the devastating effect on the service career is prominently pronounced by the return itself. It is this adverse entry, which has resulted in deprivation and denial of the petitioners claim to be promoted. The role these adverse entries play and the devastating effect on the service career is prominently pronounced by the return itself. Where such entries are taken into consideration, it is imperative need that the administrative circulars are not merely issued but are also followed in the administration. Ten years have rolled by but the petitioners representation against the adverse entry for the year ending 1974 could not be disposed of. The grave injustice, which is at times caused by such adverse entries can and should not be overlooked. The present petition is an example of the ad hocism prevailing in the administrative hierarchy as also the ruinous delay caused in disposing of the representations which not merely mars the efficiency of the officers concerned but also adversely affect their morale. ( 3. ) BY this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is at present a Tahsildar, seeks promotion to the post of Deputy collector and fixation of his seniority in that cadre and also challenges certain orders being Annexures C, E, F, O, B, P, R, S, T, T-1 and T-2. ( 4. ) THE respondents do not dispute that the petitioner joined services as Naib-Tahsildar on 5-4-1956, on being selected by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service commission, Nagpur, and comes from Mahakoshal region. He was promoted as tahsildar on 5-12-1967 and joined duties as such on 23-12-1967. He was confirmed as tahsildar on 9-12-1970, vide order dated 29-12-1970. In the Gradation-List of Officiating tahsildars, as it stood on 1-4-1973, the petitioners name stands at serial No. 198. Except for respondent No. 23- K. B. Adhwaru, respondents 2 to 22,34 to 56, 60 to 68,71 to 75 and 77 to 90 were all Tahsildars Junior in service to the petitioner. The respondents also admit that respondents 24 to 33,56 to 59 and 76 were all Superintendent Land Records and have been promoted as Deputy Collectors by the respondent No. 1 State from time to time. Respondents 69 and 70 came from clerical cadre and have also been promoted as Deputy Collectors. The respondents also admit that respondents 24 to 33,56 to 59 and 76 were all Superintendent Land Records and have been promoted as Deputy Collectors by the respondent No. 1 State from time to time. Respondents 69 and 70 came from clerical cadre and have also been promoted as Deputy Collectors. The petitioner contends that by order dated 15-9-1976 the respondent-State promoted respondents 2 to 9 as Deputy Collectors, who were admittedly junior to the petitioner in service and were placed respectively at serial Nos. 204, 205, 206, 213, 215, 217 and 218 in the Gradation-list (Annexure-A), while the petitioner is placed at serial No. 198 in the said Gradation-list. The representation made by the petitioner on 11-11-1976 against his supersession and rejection thereof without assigning any reasons, is not disputed by the respondent-State. So far as promotion of respondents 10 to 23 as Deputy Collectors, vide order dated 1-12-1976 is concerned, the respondent-State admits that they were junior to the petitioner, but it is contended by the respondent-State that the petitioner was not found fit by the D. P. C. and as such, he could not be promoted. It would not be out of place to mention here that in spite of directions the respondent-State has failed to produce the record of the D. P. C. meetings, which in fact the respondent-State should have kept ready for production and inspection even without a direction. But it is to be regretted that even after the directions the State Government has failed to produce the same. An extract of the d. P. C. Meetings, filed with the return would be considered at a later stage. ( 5. ) AGAIN on 7-3-1979 the State promoted respondents 24 to 46, vide order dated 7-3-1979. It is also admitted by the respondents that the petitioner made representations against his supersession, filed as Annexures-E and F as also the memorandum submitted to H. E. the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, filed as Annexures- G,h,i,j,k and L and all these representations and memoranda were rejected without assigning any reason. The petitioner continued to make his representations against his supersession. Respondents 60 to 64, who were appointed as Tahsildars after 17-3-1973, whose names even do not find place in the Gradation-list, Annexure-A, were also promoted to the detriment of the petitioner. ( 6. ) THE fact that respondents 65 and 69, by order dated 19-7-1978 (Annexure-P), nos. The petitioner continued to make his representations against his supersession. Respondents 60 to 64, who were appointed as Tahsildars after 17-3-1973, whose names even do not find place in the Gradation-list, Annexure-A, were also promoted to the detriment of the petitioner. ( 6. ) THE fact that respondents 65 and 69, by order dated 19-7-1978 (Annexure-P), nos. 69 to 76, by order dated 29-11-1980 (Annexure-R), respondents 77 to 84 by order dated 2-12-1980 (Annexure-S), respondents 85 to 90, by order dated 6-12-1980 (Annexure-T), were promoted as Deputy Collectors and that they were admittedly juniors to the petitioner and their names even do not find place in the Gradation-list (Annex.-A ). It is also admitted that the petitioner made representations, Annexures-G and U, - against his supersession and the representations met with the usual rejection order "vicharoparant NIRASTA KIYA GAYA". It is significant to note that respondents 4, 91 to 94, who were not found fit for confirmation as Tahsildars by the respondent State, while the petitioner was confirmed with effect from 9-12-1970, even such respondents have been promoted to the post of Dy. Collectors and this averment made by the petitioner has also been controverted or denied by the respondents. It is the height of injustice that a person not found fit for confirmation as Tahsildar, could be appointed as Dy. Collector and the rest, who were so appointed, justification sought to be advanced by the respondent-State in again emergency appointments on an ad hoc basis. Their contention is that to fulfil the urgent demand of Dy. Collectors for work in connection with the scarcity and the other like matters, it was decided to appoint Dy. Collectors on ad hoc basis. But it does not stand to reason as to why the petitioners representation against his supersession made thereafter could be ignored in preference to the retention of such Tahsildars, promoted as Dy. Collectors, who were not considered fit for confirmation as Tahsildars. ( 7. ) EVEN in matters of ad hoc promotions, the respondent-State cannot be permitted to follow the policy of pick and choose. An employee has a right to ask for consideration of his claim for promotion along with others, who are similarly situated even though it may be a case of temporary promotion on ad hoc basis. ( 7. ) EVEN in matters of ad hoc promotions, the respondent-State cannot be permitted to follow the policy of pick and choose. An employee has a right to ask for consideration of his claim for promotion along with others, who are similarly situated even though it may be a case of temporary promotion on ad hoc basis. The right of consideration of an employee cannot be denied on the ground that the promotions proposed to be made are on an ad hoc basis. In this connection it would be pertinent to refer to the M. P. State Civil Service (Executive) Classification, Recruitment and conditions of Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). . Rule 6 thereof provides for the method of Recruitment, Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 is reproduced as under: " R. 6 Method of Recruitment- (l) Recruitment to the service after the commencement of these rules, shall be by the following methods namely :- (a)-by direct recruitment on the basis of competitive examination;. and (b)-by promotion of members to the Subordinate Executive Service (Tahsildars, Superintendents of Land Records) and Superintendents of commissioners/collectors Office. " Then sub-rule (4) no doubt empowers the Government to meet the exigencies of the service. It reads as follows : "notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) if in the opinion of the government, the exigencies of the service require, the Government may, adopt such methods of recruitment to the service other than those specified in the said sub-rule (1) as it may, by order issued in this behalf prescribe. " Even in circumstances enumerated in sub-rule (4), the State Government is permitted to adopt such methods of recruitment other than those specified in sub-rule (1), but what is essential is that such methods are required to be prescribed by an order made by the_ government. In the instant case the respondent-State has not placed any such order prescribing the methods of recruitment other than those laid down by sub-rule (1) of the rule 6. Rule 6, for its interpretation, must be read in conjunction with Rule 7, which provides for appointment to the service. It reads as follows : " R. 7-Appointment to the Service. In the instant case the respondent-State has not placed any such order prescribing the methods of recruitment other than those laid down by sub-rule (1) of the rule 6. Rule 6, for its interpretation, must be read in conjunction with Rule 7, which provides for appointment to the service. It reads as follows : " R. 7-Appointment to the Service. All appointments to the service after the commencement of these rules, shall be made by the Govt, and no such appointment shall be made except in accordance with the provisions of rule 6," It is to be noted that the non-abstante clause used in this rule no such appointment shall be made except in accordance with the provisions of rule 6, prominently brings out the intention of the Rule makers that appointments have as of necessity required to be made in accordance with Rule 6. In the scheme of rules there is no place for ad hoc appointments, except as indicated by sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 and on interpretation of this rule, it cannot by any stretch of law or logic be said that the rules Framed permit ad hoc appointments for the period extending almost five years. Ad hoc appointments, in the ; instant case, have been made in 1980 and they still continue. In this connection it would be worthwhile to refer to Rules 14 and 15 of the rules. Rule 14 provides for appointment by promotion and Rule 14 (2) enjoins that the Selection Committee shall meet at intervals ordinarily not exceeding one year. This rule appears to have been fully breached and again the rule is reproduced hereunder for ready reference : " R. 14. Appointment by promotion- (1) There shall be constituted a Selection committee consisting of the members mentioned in Schedule IV for making a preliminary selection for promotion of the eligible candidates. (2)-The selection Committee shall meet at intervals ordinarily not exceeding one year. " Rule 15, prescribing conditions of eligibility for promotees as ordinary Deputy collectors, is also reproduced hereunder : " 15- Conditions of eligibility for promotion as ordinary Deputy Collectors (1) The Selection Committee shall consider the cases of all Tahsildars/superinten-dents of Land Records, who are members of the Subordinate Executive service provided that they have put in 5 years or more of service in that capacity. The Committee shall also consider cases of all eligible superintendents of the Offices of Commissioners/collectors, who have put in 5 years or more service in that capacity. (2)-Their names shall be considered in the order in which they appear in the gradation-list of subordinate Executive Service Superintendents. (3)-No Tahsildar/superintendent of Land Records shall be eligible for promotion as Deputy Collector unless he has passed by the higher Standard the departmental examinations in Revenue Law and Procedure, Criminal law and Procedure and in Accounts, on Promotion he shall be required to pass in Civil Law and Procedure by the higher standard within two years of his promotion. The above condition will not apply to allocated Tahsildars/superintendents of Land Records, who are 45 years/more in age on the date of selection. On promotion as Deputy Collectors such Tahsildars/superintendents of Land records will be exempted from passing the departmental examinations by the higher Standard. (4)-No superintendent of a Commissioner/district Office shall be promoted as Deputy Collector unless he has passed the departmental examination in revenue Law and Procedure and in Criminal Law and Procedure at least by the lower standard. He should pass the remaining departmental examinations in Civil Law and in Accounts within a period of two years of the date of his promotion. " Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 prescribes that names shall be considered in the order in which they appear in the gradation list. Thus, the Gradation-list cannot be ignored. But the ad hoc promotions made in such a large number by the respondents being contrary to the rules, are liable to be quashed. It was imperative for the State Govt, to have got the suitability of the petitioner either examined by the D. P. C. or considered his claims for being promoted even on ad hoc basis, while such a large number of respondents were promoted on ad hoc basis. Now, the equality clauses of the Constitution make it imperative that equality of treatment must be given to eligible candidates in the matter of promotions, since promotion has been held to be a condition of service within the meaning of Article 309 of the Constitution. It is not the case of the respondent-State that while making the so-called promotions the petitioners case was considered and he was not found fit for such, promotion. It is not the case of the respondent-State that while making the so-called promotions the petitioners case was considered and he was not found fit for such, promotion. In this view of the matter the petitioners entitlement to consideration for being promoted as Deputy Collector, even while making ad hoc promotions, cannot be denied. Although promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right but at the same time the principle of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution dictates that where occasion arises for considering the competing claims of promotion of more Government servants than one, such one of them is entitled to his case being considered and the power to keep such consideration in abeyance or to postpone the actual grant of promotion, which might otherwise be available to a person, is nothing but a denial of the principle of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India (see Sheodayal Sinha vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 S. C. 1543 ). The element of ad hoc promotions does not give a handle or instrument in the hands of the authorities to keep such consideration in abeyance and continue to make ad hoc promotion, as in the instant case, it definitely leads to curtailment of the right and constitutional protection afforded even in matters of promotion. Even in the matter of ad hoc appointments, all eligible persons must be considered. ( 8. ) AD hoc appointments are meant only for a temporary period and are mostly made to meet the immediate needs or exigencies of service. As has been indicated above, in this case ad hoc promotions have been sucessively and repeatedly made. If after having made the initial ad hoc promotions even at a subsequent stage, further ad hoc appointments or promotions are required to be made it is but natural that eligible candidates are also to be considered and they can put up their claims for the post. ( 9. ) SHRI Chaphekar, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing with Shri in this case as many as respondents Nos. 47 to 90 were promoted on ad hoc basis by intermittent promotion orders issued on various dates, ranging between the period of two to three months. In such circumstances, there can hardly be any justification in ignoring the petitioners claim in the name of making ad hoc promotions. 47 to 90 were promoted on ad hoc basis by intermittent promotion orders issued on various dates, ranging between the period of two to three months. In such circumstances, there can hardly be any justification in ignoring the petitioners claim in the name of making ad hoc promotions. First ad hoc promotions were made by order dated 17-4-1980 (Annexure-B) and three months thereafter on 17-9-1980 (Annexure-P), on 28-11-1980 (Anneure-R), on 2-12-1980 (Annexure-S) and on 16-12-1980 (Annexure-P), again ad hoc promotions were made. This shows the time-gap. The respondents have only one justification and that is ad hoc nature. It is also pertinent to note here that in the return filed as back as in September, 1981, it is averred in reply to paragraphs 10,11,12 and 3 of the petition that the D. P. C. has shortly been convened and will consider the cases of promotion, including that of the petitioner. But almost 31/2 years thereafter the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State was. not in a position to make any categorical statement whether during all this period at any point of time there was any move to hold the D. P. C. , meeting and whether in fact the petitioners case was even proposed to be considered. In such circumstances the respondents action of making ad hoc promotions in such a large number and postponing the petitioners right of consideration for such promotion, for years thereafter almost for five years cannot be held to be justifiable. Such action deserves to be condemned- The fact that ad hoc promotions have continued for over five years, belie the respondent-States version that it was in order to fulfil the urgent demand of Deputy Collectors for work in connection with scarcity and other like matters in the Government that such promotions were made. The procedure held out in the return that the D. P. C. is being convened shortly to consider the case of Tahsildars, superintendents Land Records etc. , according to the Gradation-list for appointment by promotion to the post of Deputy Collectors, has equally proved to be illusory as no such d. P. C. meeting has been held after over a lapse of about four years after filing of the return. In this state of affairs, the expression ad hoc, which in its true sense means stop gap has lost its meaning and significance. In this state of affairs, the expression ad hoc, which in its true sense means stop gap has lost its meaning and significance. It is to be noted with regret that it is no right in any Government to continue ad hoc appointment/promotions for a number of years, without calling the D. P. C. meetting in accordance with new rules. ( 10. ) THE other ground is non-consideration because of adverse entry in the petitioners service record. As stated earlier, even after a lapse of ten years and a promise contained in the return itself, petitioners representation made against the adverse entry in his service roll for the year ending -1974, has not been disposed of. In this connection it would be necessary to refer to the instructions. It has been repeatedly stressed upon the authorities to dispose of such representations within the time prescribed, which according to the aforesaid C. A. D. memo is three months, if it could not be done after a period of ten years, the petitioner is not to be blamed or punished for such adverse entry. The adverse remarks, made in the petitioners character roll, in such circumstances, deserve to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. ( 11. ) THE respondent-State was directed to keep the record ready, vide orders dated 8-2-1985 and 12-2-1985, but in spite of these directions the record as directed and contained in the list enclosed with LA. No. 1167 dated 8-2-198, has not been produced and, therefore, this Court has to proceed in absence of the record. It is not merely a sorry state of affairs but a condemnable state of affairs as well. Where directions of the court are flouted, needless to add that in a writ petition praying for the writ of certiorari, no direction as such is required for production of documents. In absence of record, the extracts of the D. P. C. Meetings filed by the respondents cannot be acted upon. Even otherwise, reasons are required to be assigned for holding a particular candidate as not fit for promotion. No reasons as such are assigned about the comparative merit or demerit of the petitioner vis-a-vis others selected and it was for this reason that the record was called for. Even otherwise, reasons are required to be assigned for holding a particular candidate as not fit for promotion. No reasons as such are assigned about the comparative merit or demerit of the petitioner vis-a-vis others selected and it was for this reason that the record was called for. No doubt, the Court cannot substitute its own judgment in the matter of selection, but at the same time when challenged as in the instant case, the Court can at least look into the record so as to satisfy itself whether norms and guidelines set out for promotions were uniformly applied to and whether the objective assessment, based on service records, was made. It is unfortunate that the respondent-State in spite of directions failed in its duty to place the whole record so as to help the court in coming to a just conclusion. In such circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the petitioner, who has made a grievance about discrimination in the matter of promotions, ( 12. ) THE other submission made by the respondent-State is that the petitioner was not considered for ad hoc promotion as he was not found fit for promotion by the d. P. C. , as the action of the D. P. C. itself has been found to be invalid, there is no force in this submission. Even otherwise the submission cannot be accepted as it is not the rule of estoppel that once a candidate is found not fit, it operates as a bar for future consideration. It is also worthwhile to note that the respondent-State has not placed any such order which would go to indicate the method adopted by the Government for making ad hoc promotions, as required by sub-rule (4) of R. 6, referred to above. ( 13. ) LEARNED counsel for the State contended that it has been stated on oath that the petitioners case was considered by the D. P. C. while making ad hoc promotions and he was not found fit and the submission should not be disbelieved. Shri Chaphekar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that there was no justification for the State to withhold the record and in fact it should have willingly produced the same. Shri Chaphekar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that there was no justification for the State to withhold the record and in fact it should have willingly produced the same. As the orders, Annexures R/1, R/3 and R/5 do not by any means indicate any reason and they are merely conclusions of the D. P. C. , such conclusions have got to be supported by reasons. ( 14. ) IN this view of the matter, the State would have done well to produce the required record. By not doing so, which has merely paved the way for acceptance of the petitioners contention, the ad hoc promotions made are quashed. The respondent-State is directed to consider the petitioners case for promotion and assign him his due seniority with retrospestive effect, if necessary. It is further directed to regularise the ad hoc promotions made by holding the D. P. C. Meeting, within three months from this order, considering the petitioners claim. ( 15. ) FOR the foregoing reasons, this petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed with costs, Counsels fee Rs. 300/-, if certified. The orders annexures-C, E, F, G, P, R, S, T, T-1 and T-2 are hereby quashed. The outstanding amount of secruity deposit, after verification, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.