JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---By the present petition the petitioner is seeking to challenge the promotion of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the post of Assistant Director of Tourism and further for direction to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to determine the seniority of the petitioner in the grade of Assistant Planning Officer/Assistant Tourist Officer from the date of 22-12-1979 stated to be the date of her initial appointment. 2.The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the petitioner initially joined the Government services sometime in the year 1964 in the Directorate of Fisheries and was absorbed in the Department of Information and Tourism as Information Assistant on 4-3-1968. She was confirmed in the post of Information Assistant with effect from 4-3-1970 by order dated 23-4-1970. The respondent No. 3 was appointed as Information Assistant on 9-2-1978. Whereas the respondent No. 4 was also appointed as Information Assistant on 6-3-1978. On 22-12-1979 the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Tourist Officer on ad-hoc basis in vacancy arisen on account of promotion on ad-hoc basis of Abdul Majeed from the post of Assistant Tourist Officer to Assistant Director. The said Abdul Majeed was promoted as Assistant Director on ad-hoc basis on 17-12-1979, in the vacancy arisen on account of the promotion on ad-hoc basis of V.A.P. Mahajan from the post of Assistant Director to Grade II post of Goa Civil Service. Simultaneously, A.M. Viegas who was also Assistant Planning Officer was promoted as Assistant Director on 17-12-1979 on ad-hoc basis and in the resultant vacancy in the post of Assistant Planning Officer one Albert Cunha was promoted on ad-hoc basis from 21-12-1979. In April, 1983 the said Abdul Majeed joined Government of India Tourist Office and consequently resigned from the post of Assistant Director with effect from 30-6-1983. Meanwhile on 20-6-83 Shri A.M. Viegas was regularised in the post of Assistant Director. Meanwhile one Shri B.G. Khandeparkar who was confirmed as Assistant Tourist Officer with effect from 14-11-1977 was sent on deputation to Goa Tourism Development Corporation Limited from 31-3-1983 to 23-9-83 and thereafter on promotion was appointed to the post of Assistant Director of Tourism with effect from 24-9-1983 on ad-hoc basis. Meanwhile one Shri B.G. Khandeparkar who was confirmed as Assistant Tourist Officer with effect from 14-11-1977 was sent on deputation to Goa Tourism Development Corporation Limited from 31-3-1983 to 23-9-83 and thereafter on promotion was appointed to the post of Assistant Director of Tourism with effect from 24-9-1983 on ad-hoc basis. On account of promotion of Shri B.G. Khandeparkar on ad-hoc basis from the post of Assistant Tourist Officer to Assistant Director and prior to that his deputation to Goa Tourism Development Corporation Limited, the resultant vacancy in the post of Assistant Tourist Officer was allowed to be continued to be filled by the petitioner on ad-hoc basis. Albert Cunha who was regularised in the post of Assistant Planning Officer on 5-7-83 was sent on deputation to Goa Tourism Development Corporation Limited from 13-10-1983. Similarly R.R. Pereira was temporarily promoted to the post of Assistant Planning Officer with effect from 5-7-1983. Albert Cunha retired on 30-4-1986 and one Y.M. Nigale who was promoted as Assistant Tourist Officer in 1983 was regularised in the vacancy arisen on account of retirement of Albert Cunha in the post of Assistant Tourist Officer. On 17-11-1990 the said R.R. Pereira also retired and thereafter the petitioner herein was appointed on regular basis with effect from 10.10.1991 alongwith Dattaram Shirodkar also in the post of Assistant Tourist Officer. 3.It is the case of the petitioner that after confirmation in the post of Information Assistant she was promoted to the post of Assistant Tourist Officer purportedly on ad-hoc basis vide order No. DT/ADMN/89/7956 dated 22-12-79. This promotion was on the basis of recommendation of D.P.C. after considering all other eligible candidates. The petitioner continued to serve in the said post as Assistant Tourist Officer without any break from the date of her initial appointment and continues to serve in the same post. Though the order of promotion of the petitioner purports to state that the petitioner's appointment was purely on ad-hoc basis and would not bestow any claim for regular appointment, promotion to higher post and seniority, as a matter of fact, the petitioner's appointments was neither limited in point of time, nor a stop gap arrangement, nor was it made de hors the recruitment rules. The petitioner's appointment was for all practical purposes a regular promotion in accordance with the 1977 Recruitment Rules. The petitioner's appointment was for all practical purposes a regular promotion in accordance with the 1977 Recruitment Rules. The petitioner's appointment was styled as ad-hoc only for the reason that the appointment on promotion of Shri Abdul Majeed to the next higher post of Tourist Officer/Assistant Director of Tourism was pending regularisation. In the circumstances according to the petitioner though the order of her regularisation speak about her services being regularised with effect from date of the order i.e. 10-10-1991 for all legal purposes the regularisation has to date back to 22-12-79. The date of her initial appointment and accordingly she is to be listed senior to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who were promoted much after the petitioner. 4.On the other hand it is the case of the respondents that by order dated 5--5-1977 the allocation was made of the staff members among the two Directorates namely Directorate of Tourism and Directorate of Information and the petitioner was allocated to Directorate of Tourism as Information Assistant. The two posts of Assistant Tourist Officer and one post of Assistant Planning Officer was created on 17-4-1974. As far as those post were concerned there were no recruitment rules framed till then. After creation of the said post, D.P.C. was convened on 21-5-1974 and on its recommendation one Shri B.G. Khandeparkar was promoted on ad-hoc basis to the post of Assistant Tourist Officer. At that time though the petitioner was considered by D.P.C. She was not recommended for promotion. After framing of Recruitment Rules by Goa, Daman and Diu Directorate of Information and Directorate of Tourism Group 'C' and 'D' (Non-Ministerial-Non-Gazetted) Posts Recruitment Rules, 1977, D.P.C. met on 14-11-1977 for regularising the eligible candidates for promotion on regular basis, and in the said D.P.C. though the petitioner was also considered she was not recommended for promotion. Whereas the said Shri. Khandeparkar was recommended for promotion on regular basis. Again the D.P.C. met on 21-12-1979 and therein the petitioner was recommended for promotion on ad-hoc basis to the post of Assistant Tourist Officer. Accordingly the petitioner was recommended for promotion only in the year 1979 pursuant to the vacancy arisen as a result of promotion of Abdul Majeed on ad-hoc basis to the post of Assistant Director from Assistant Tourist Officer. Accordingly the petitioner was recommended for promotion only in the year 1979 pursuant to the vacancy arisen as a result of promotion of Abdul Majeed on ad-hoc basis to the post of Assistant Director from Assistant Tourist Officer. It is further the case of respondent that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Tourist Officer was on account of resultant vacancy arisen consequent to the promotion of two officials on ad-hoc basis pending decision of the Recruitment Rules. Accordingly on the basis of recommendation of D.P.C. which did not go into the relative merit of the eligible candidates, being a primary consideration in the selection post, but only considered the seniority cum fitness of the eligible candidates and consequently the recommendation made was not in accordance with the Rules. The petitioner was considered by D.P.C. which met on 30-6-1983, 25-2-1989 and 28-2-1989 wherein however, the petitioner was not recommended for promotion. It was only in D.P.C. meeting held on 15-5-1991 that the petitioner was recommended for regular promotion to the post of Assistant Tourist Officer. According to the respondent the petitioner's initial appointment was purely on ad-hoc basis, not against a regular vacancy but as a stop-gap arrangement to fill in the resultant vacancy on account of incumbent's promotion on ad-hoc basis and it cannot be said that it was a regular promotion in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. 5.Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and going through the records including the proceedings of various D.P.C. held in the matter from the years 1979 to 1991 it is seen that the petitioner was promoted in the year 1979 to the post of Assistant Tourist Officer on ad-hoc basis in the vacancy arisen on account of promotion of one Abdul Majeed to a higher post on ad-hoc basis. Records disclose that Abdul Majeed was promoted to the post of Assistant Director in the year 1979 purely on ad-hoc basis. The said vacancy in the post of Assistant Director had arisen on account of promotion, on ad-hoc basis of Shri. V.A.P. Mahajan from the said post to Grade II post of Goa Civil Service. Records disclose that Abdul Majeed was promoted to the post of Assistant Director in the year 1979 purely on ad-hoc basis. The said vacancy in the post of Assistant Director had arisen on account of promotion, on ad-hoc basis of Shri. V.A.P. Mahajan from the said post to Grade II post of Goa Civil Service. In other words the vacancy of Assistant Director which was filled on ad-hoc basis by Abdul Majeed was not a clear vacancy but was resultant vacancy on account of promotion, on ad-hoc basis, of V.A.P. Mahajan to Grade II post of Goa Civil Service. So also the vacancy which had arisen to the post of Assistant Tourist Officer on account of promotion of Abdul Majeed as Assistant Director was also not a clear vacancy but as rightly submitted by the respondent, it was a resultant vacancy and consequently the appointment of the petitioner therein was also purely on ad-hoc basis. On perusal of the proceedings of the D.P.C. wherein Abdul Majeed was recommended for the promotion to the post of Assistant Director disclose that the said vacancy had arisen on account of promotion on ad-hoc basis of V.A.P. Mahajan. Further the proceedings held on 21-12-1979 disclose that petitioner was recommended for promotion on ad-hoc basis on account of the vacancy arisen consequent to promotion on ad-hoc basis of Abdul Majeed. Further the proceedings of D.P.C. meeting held on 30-6-1983 disclose that it considered 12 Government officials for regular promotions to the post of Assistant Tourist Officer including the petitioner, however did not recommend the petitioner for regular promotion. Similarly the proceedings of D.P.C. held on 11-12-1984 to review the proceedings conducted on 27-12-74 for filling up the post on ad-hoc promotion and the basis was seniority cum fitness disclose that the petitioner was considered but not recommended and who were recommended were Shri. Albert Cunha and G.R. Khandelkar. Again in D.P.C. held on 25-2-1989 though the petitioner was considered for filling the post by promotion to the post of Assistant Tourist Officer she was not recommended and three other persons were recommended namely, respondents Nos. 3, 4 and one Smt. Pamela Mascarenhas. Again in the D.P.C. held on 28-2-1989 though the petitioner was considered she was not recommended and one Y.M. Nigale was recommended for regularisation in the post of Assistant Tourist Officer. 3, 4 and one Smt. Pamela Mascarenhas. Again in the D.P.C. held on 28-2-1989 though the petitioner was considered she was not recommended and one Y.M. Nigale was recommended for regularisation in the post of Assistant Tourist Officer. Again in the meeting held on 15-5-1991 though the petitioner was considered alongwith 4 others she was not recommended for promotion on regular basis to the said post and one Dattaram Shirodkar was recommended. Again on the same day in the second D.P.C. meeting held the petitioner was considered and recommended for promotion or regular basis to the post of Assistant Tourist Officer. 6.Records therefore clearly disclose that the initial appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Tourist Officer on 22-12-1979 was neither in terms of Recruitment Rules nor was in a clear vacancy. It is true that the petitioner continuously occupied the post of Assistant Tourist Officer without any break from the date of appointment on 22-12-1979 till date but the fact remains that she was occupying the said post till 10-10-1991 purely on ad-hoc basis on account of resultant vacancy arisen from time to time in the said post pursuant to the ad-hoc promotion of the incumbent thereof the higher post. The records pertaining to the various D.P.C. meetings held to consider the employees for promotion against regular post and which were made available for our perusal disclose that though the petitioner was considered from time to time, she was not recommended in any of those D.P.C. meetings for regular appointment since she could not secure the remarks necessary for the promotion to the post of Assistant Tourist Officer till 15-5-1991. 7.Placing reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of (Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and others)1, reported in 1990(2) Supreme Court Cases 715, Shri M.S. Sonak learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner did try to submit that considering the fact the petitioner had been continuously serving in the post of Asst. 7.Placing reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of (Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and others)1, reported in 1990(2) Supreme Court Cases 715, Shri M.S. Sonak learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner did try to submit that considering the fact the petitioner had been continuously serving in the post of Asst. Tourist Officer without any break from the date of her initial appointment till today and her initial appointment had been pursuant to the recommendation made by duly constituted D.P.C. the petitioner ought to have been considered as she had been appointed to the post in accordance with rules and for the purpose of fixing her seniority her services ought to have been counted from the date of initial appointment and not from the date of order of regularisation. Plain reading of the said judgment of the Apex Court clearly disclose that the submission on behalf of the petitioner holds no water and is to be rejected outright. Their Lordship in the said judgment has clearly held that once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to Rules of Recruitment, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not from the date of his confirmation. Their Lordships have further held therein that the corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad-hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. The records placed before us in no uncertain terms disclose that the petitioner was officiating on ad-hoc basis in the post of Assistant Tourist Officer on account of temporary vacancy arising pursuant to promotion of the incumbent in the said post and this position continued till the date of regularisation of the petitioner in the said post. The initial appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Tourist Officer was not according to rules but on the basis of recommendation of D.P.C. which did not go into the relative merits of eligible candidates, which is otherwise necessary exercise to be undertaken while considering the candidate to fill up a selection post, and considered only seniority-cum-fitness of the eligible candidates and therefore the recommendations made were not in accordance with the rules of recruitment. Many judgments were cited before us, but the same cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, since after ad hoc appointment of the petitioner she was time and again considered for regular appointment and not found fit for the same. 8.Added to this the records also disclose that one Albert Cunha and R.R. Pereira as well as Y.M. Nigale were promoted on regular basis during the period 1983 to 1986. Even in the year 1991 one Dattaram Shirodkar was promoted prior to the petitioner. Petitioner never reacted and there is no challenge to their promotions which were made prior to the petitioner. Undisputedly Shri. Albert Cunha was promoted to the post of Assistant Tourist Officer alongwith the petitioner but he was regularised in the year 1983. Similarly R.R. Pereira, who was promoted to the post of Assistant Tourist Officer much after petitioner, was also regularised in the said post in the year 1983. In the absence of their promotion being challenged the petitioner cannot be heard to challenge the promotion of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are promoted much after the promotion of said three persons. The very fact that the petitioner was not having any grievance against the said three persons disclose that the petitioner was fully aware that she was not considered fit for promotion to the post of Assistant Tourist Officer at the time the said persons were promoted. Besides respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed on regular basis as Assistant Tourist Officer in 1988, 1989 respectively and she approached this Court after 5 years. 9.We find that no case is made out for interference in the matter of regularisation of the petitioner in Assistant Tourist Officer's post as well as in the matter of fixing her seniority. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 10.In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. *****