ORDER : G.N. Ray, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondent claimed promotion on the basis of seniority reckoned on the basis of ad hoc service rendered by him. Since such claim was not allowed, the respondent filed the suit for getting such relief and it appears that the trial court granted such relief by holding that "the law is well settled that the ad hoc period of service rendered by the employees is as good a service as any other service, in case the service of the ad hoc employee is subsequently regularised". It appears that the appellate authority had also taken the same view and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. Further appeal, however, was summarily dismissed on the ground of delay. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the seniority given to the respondent on the basis of ad hoc service rendered before regularisation. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to the circular dated 14-12-1981 indicating the principle for counting of ad hoc/purely temporary service for the purpose of experience for promotion and direct recruitment. It has been provided in the said circular: "In the event of any junior person becoming eligible for promotion to a higher post by virtue of his past experience on ad hoc service, superseding a senior, the promotion of such junior person should be done on ad hoc basis till such time his senior attains the prescribed years of experience, to avoid any super session." 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to a subsequent circular dated 25-4-1988 on the same subject, namely, counting of ad hoc/purely temporary service for the purpose of experience and promotion of direct recruitment. The Government, after considering various representations, has ultimately decided that the junior person is only promoted by virtue of ad hoc service and the benefit of seniority cannot be given to him. No other rule or any circular indicating that seniority is also to be assigned on the basis of ad hoc service, has been placed before us. It is quite evident that although for the purpose of promotion, the experience of ad hoc service is to be counted, such ad hoc service does not give seniority to the employee on account of ad hoc service rendered by him. It is quite evident that although for the purpose of promotion, the experience of ad hoc service is to be counted, such ad hoc service does not give seniority to the employee on account of ad hoc service rendered by him. The courts below, therefore, clearly proceeded on an erroneous footing that the period under ad hoc employment was as good a service as any other service if the service of the ad hoc employee is subsequently regularised even for the purpose of seniority. The respondent also claimed such seniority alleging that seniority had been given to two juniors by counting their period of ad hoc service. It may be stated here that the appellant had contended before the courts below that since such employees had obtained a decree of the Court in their favour, the seniority had to be given in terms of the decree but the appellant had not given such seniority voluntarily by accepting that ad hoc service is countable for seniority. It has not been found by the courts below that such seniority had been given to the persons mentioned in the plaint by the appellant on a matter of principle. It may be stated here that the trial court has held that such judgment in favour of the said employees was a judgment in person am and not in rem. As it appears to us that ad hoc service is not countable for assigning seniority, we set aside the impugned order by allowing this appeal. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.