D. P. WADHWA ( 1 ) RULE D. B. Since we have heard the arguments at length we propose to dispose of the writ petition at this stage objection of Mr. Jain for second respondent notwithstanding. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, working as Joint Chief in the office of the first respondent, has challenged the appointment of the second respondent Mr. AM. Vadi as Resident Director at New York. The post of Resident Director (Foreign Office) is a selection Group A post in the scale of pay of Rs. 4,100. 00-5,300. 00 (Level-1) and Rs. 3,700. 00-5,000. 00 (Level-11 ). The method of recruitment is by transfer failing which by direct recruitment/ deputation. Grades from which appointment "on transfer could be made are: Officers of the first respondent in the pay-scale of Rs. 4,100. 00-5,300. 00 with two years service in the grade for Level-1 posting and in the pay- scale of Rs. 3,700. 00-5,000. 00 with four years service in the grade for Level-II posting. The selection committee is described as Senior Selection Committee Grade I. As per the recruitment rules the tenure of posting will normally be three years which may be curtailed or extended at the discretion of the appointing authority. As per the recruitment rules the Selection Committee for the post of Resident Director for offices abroad means a committee consisting of the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, to be nominated by the Minister of Commerce; the Executive Director and upto two experts to be nominated by the Chairman of the first respondent. In the present case, the Selection Committee was constituted of the following persons :- 1. Shri C. Ramachandran, Additional " Secretary and Financial Adviser, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi. 2. Shri K. Kigpen, Executive Director, India Trade Promotion Organisation, New Delhi. 3. Shri G. P. Rao, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi. 4. Professor (Dr.) M. Govinda Rao,national Institute of Public Finance and Policy, New Delhi. ( 3 ) THE Selection Committee considered the names of three persons including the petitioner as well as the second respondent and one Mr. P. K. Bhandari. These officers were interviewed for Level-I post in New York. This was on 9 March 1993. On this very day the same very Selection Committee also considered three officers for Resident Director, Tokyo (Level-11 post ). One Mr. P. K. Bhandari. These officers were interviewed for Level-I post in New York. This was on 9 March 1993. On this very day the same very Selection Committee also considered three officers for Resident Director, Tokyo (Level-11 post ). One Mr. Daya Chand was also interviewed for the post of Resident Director, Tokyo. Hebhad only 1-1/2 years of total service left in the first respondent. The selection of the second respondent has been challenged particularly on two counts : First, that he was not qualified as he was not having two years service in the grade of Rs. 4,100. 00-5,300. 00 for Level-1 posting. It is contended that the second respondent was working as Joint Chief on ad-hoc basis only since 15 May 1989 and was not having regular two years service in the grade, while the petitioner was serving as Joint Chief on regular basis for the last over 15 years. The second objection was that the name of the second petitioner had been forwarded to the Selection Committee for selection to the post of Resident Director, Tokyo (Level-11) posting and Selection Committee could not assume a jurisdiction to select the second respondent for Level-1 post of Resident Director at New York. ( 4 ) DR. Singhvi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that selection of second respondent was bad in law and that the Selection Committee did not take into consideration the necessary selection" criteria which was merit, efficiency, service records and C. R. dossiers, experience, general suitability and due regard to seniority. He said while the second respondent was ad-hoc appointee, petitioner was working on regular basis for the last 15 years-and in fact he had written the annual confidential reports of the second respondent for some years. He said petitioner had excellence service record and could not have been ignored but for certain extraneous considerations. Mr. Sarin appearing for the first respondent repudiated these contentions and said that selection method was proper and that all the relevant considerations were taken into consideration to select the-second respondent. Mr. Jain, appearing for the second respondent, also supported Mr. Sarin and said that selection of the second respondent was based on merit. During the course of arguments minutes of the Selection Committee were submitted before us. Mr. Jain, appearing for the second respondent, also supported Mr. Sarin and said that selection of the second respondent was based on merit. During the course of arguments minutes of the Selection Committee were submitted before us. The Selection Committee recorded the relevant recruitment rules for selection to the post of Resident Director, New York (Level-I) and Resident Director, Tokyo (Level-II ). Though the Selection Committee noted that the tenure of posting of Resident Directors in foreign offices was normally for a period of three years, but the fact remains that as per the relevant recruitment rules this tenure could be extended or even curtailed. Then the Selection Committee noted that a selected officer was required to serve for a minimum period of two years after his return from foreign posting and he was also to execute an undertaking and a guarantee for a sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 in each case for this purpose. This is no part of the recruitment rules. Mr. Sariri said that this was as per past practice and there were some office instructions in that regard. We are unable to appreciate as to how further conditions could be imposed which in fact vary the selection criteria as per the recruitment rules. ( 5 ) THEN admittedly second respondent s case was before the Selection Committee for selection to the post of Resident Director, Tokyo (Level-II ). It is not clear to us how the Selection Committee could assume jurisdiction to select the second respondent for the post of Resident Director, which is Level-I post. When the recruitment rules talk of two years service in the grade, it cannot mean service on ad-hoc basis. This is what even the first respondent understood initially when the name of the second respondent was forwarded for his selection to the post of Resident Director, Tokyo, as in that case second respondent would have made for that post as he had been in the scale of Rs. 3,700. 00- 5,000. 00 with four years service in that grade and on regular basis. ( 6 ) THE Selection Committee did not deliberate on the fact that second respondent was Joint Chief (ad-hoc) and could -he be considered for the post of Resident Director (Level-1) post though he may be in the scale of Rs. 4,100. 00-5,300. 00 for two years period. 00 with four years service in that grade and on regular basis. ( 6 ) THE Selection Committee did not deliberate on the fact that second respondent was Joint Chief (ad-hoc) and could -he be considered for the post of Resident Director (Level-1) post though he may be in the scale of Rs. 4,100. 00-5,300. 00 for two years period. It is not mearly the grade, it is also the regular service which matters. It is well settled that an adhoc employee has no right to the post he is holding. That the second respondent had been holding the post of Joint Chief on ad-hoc basis for number of years and could be even deemed to have been regularised in that post was not the issue before the Selection Committee and such a plea has not been advanced before us by the first respondent and in fact could not have been so advanced. To us it appears a grave error has been committed by the Selection Committee in considering the case of the second respondent for Level-1 post when he was not having two years service in the requisite grade, i. e. , when second respondent was not holding the post of Joint Chief for two years on regular basis. The minutes of the Selection Committee also show -that in the ease of the petitioner it also took into account the fact that he did not have adequate service to fulfil the condition of minimum period of two years after completion of normal tenure of three years of posting abroad. Petitioner retires on 30 November 1997, and the Selection Committee met on 9 March 1993. In that case the period of his foreign posting could have been curtailed for a couple of months. That was certainly a relevant consideration which the Selection Committee could have considered. It was pointed out to us that for selection to Level-11 post of Resident Director, Tokyo, the Selection Committee considered three names one of whom had only 1-1/2 years of total service left. . It is true that that gentleman was not selected, but the fact remains that he was considered and the minutes of the Selection Committee do not show that it was on that account he was not selected. . It is true that that gentleman was not selected, but the fact remains that he was considered and the minutes of the Selection Committee do not show that it was on that account he was not selected. A great deal of argument was raised if the performance of the petitioner was far better than that of the second respondent, and did the Selection Committee properly evaluated the same. The Selection Committee recorded "based on the respective CR Dossiers, service records, performance and evaluation of general suitability during the interview, the Committee unanimously decided to recommend Shri A. M. Vadi" the second respondent, for the post of Resident Director (Level-I) at New York Office. Mr. Sarin said it was no part of the court functioning to evaluate the relative performance of the candidates and it was to be left to the Selection Committee to do that. In support of his submission reference was made to two decisions of the Supreme Court: (1) Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke etc. v. B. S. Mahajan etc. . JT 1989 (4) S. C. 487; and (2) National Institute of Mental Health St Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Roman and others, AIR 1992 S. C. 1806. There can be no dispute with the proposition as stated, but we are of the opinion that the Selection Committee exceeded its jurisdiction in selecting the second respondent when he was not qualified for the post, and when his name was not before the Selection Committee for selection to this post which was Level-1 poet. The Selection Committee also acted unfairly when it held that the petitioner would-not have two years service left after his three years tenure abroad, but that was no part of the recruitment rules even if this-period of three years could have been curtailed to two years to satisfy that criteria. These irrelevant considerations have been taken into account. Of course, we are not going into the question of comparative merit of the petitioner and the second respondent. ( 7 ) IN this view of the matter, this petition succeeds. The selection of second respondent for the post of Resident Director, New York (Level- I) post is set aside. The selection process for this post will be gone into again as per the recruitment rules. Rule is made absolute. There will be, however, no order as to costs.