ORDER : Sujata V. Manohar, J. - These three appeals relate to the ad hoc promotion granted to the respondent in each of the three appeals as Assistant Engineer. The respondent, at the material time, was holding the substantive post of Superintendent Grade I. For the sake of convenience, we will take the facts in Civil Appeal No. 4883 of 1993. The respondent obtained substantive promotion as Superintendent Grade I in 1966. On 8-2-1985, he was given ad hoc promotion as Assistant Engineer for a period of six months. Thereafter, he was reverted on 1-2-1986. He was again given ad hoc promotion on 3-3-1986. He was reverted on 3-3-1987. On 9-3-1987, he was again promoted on ad hoc basis and he was reverted on 9-9-1987. Since then, he was functioning as Superintendent Grade I when he filed a writ petition in September 1991 challenging the order of reversion of 9-9-1987. 2. The respondent contended that his promotion as Assistant Engineer should be deemed to be a regular promotion from inception and not ad hoc promotion. This relief has been granted by the High Court. The respondent has relied upon the fact that his ad hoc promotion was on the basis of the recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, it should be considered as regular promotion. This submission has no merit because if one examines para 11 of Appendix 29 of the Civil Services Regulations which are applicable to the respondent, the Departmental Promotion Committee procedure is required to be followed even in the case of ad hoc promotions. The reversion of the respondent on 9-9-1987 appears to be on account of the fact that when the regular selection was held in 1987 by the Departmental Promotion Committee, he was not selected for promotion on a regular basis. Therefore, this is not a case where for long periods regular promotions are not made. The respondent continued as ad hoc Assistant Engineer because he could not be selected for regular promotion. His ad hoc promotion was on account of exigencies of service. In these circumstances, his reversion on 9-9-1987 cannot be faulted. 3. The same is the case with the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 4886 of 1993. He was also reverted in 1987 because he could not be regularly selected in 1987. His ad hoc promotion was on account of exigencies of service. In these circumstances, his reversion on 9-9-1987 cannot be faulted. 3. The same is the case with the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 4886 of 1993. He was also reverted in 1987 because he could not be regularly selected in 1987. He filed a writ petition in 1992 challenging the reversion order, which has been wrongly allowed by the High Court. 4. In the case of the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 4910 of 1993, he was initially promoted as Assistant Engineer on an ad hoc basis in December 1982. He has been reverted and again promoted on ad hoc basis. He had challenged the order of 1-2-1985 under which he was again reappointed as Assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis. His appointment on ad hoc basis on 1-2-1985 was on account of the fact that in the selections for regular appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer held in 1985, the respondent was not selected. The order of 1-2-1985, therefore, continued him as Assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in striking down his continuation on ad hoc basis as Assistant Engineer and holding that his appointment should be considered as regular appointment. We are informed that subsequently in the selections held in 1987 for regular appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer, the respondent has been selected and appointed as Assistant Engineer on regular basis. 5. The High Court has followed the position in Prem Singh case from which we are told that a special leave petition has been dismissed by this Court. We, however, find that that SLP was dismissed on the ground of delay. 6. In the premises, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside and the writ petitions filed by the respondents are dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.