Judgment :- S.K. KRISHNAN, J. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Drugs Controller General (India) for and on behalf of the Union of India as against the order passed in O.A.465/01 dated 23.11.2001 by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The case stated by the second respondent herein before the Tribunal is as follows: The second respondent was appointed as Drugs Inspector in the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation,West Zone, Bombay against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe during the year 1977. He was appointed in the said post on the basis of the recommendation by the Union Public Service Commission. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Drugs Controller on temporary basis against a single vacancy. However, he did not joint the promoted post due to some personal problems. Since the second respondent not joined in the promoted post in time, the said appointment was cancelled by order dated 30.6.92 (Vide Order No.X.12016/6/89-D (DMS & PFA)) Subsequently, a Departmental Promotion Meeting was held in April 1995. Thereafter, the second respondent was promoted as Assistant Drugs Controller against a vacancy based on reservation. The said promotion was given to him on ad hoc basis and the concerned authority asked him to join duty on 24.2.1995. As per the instructions issued in the appointment order, he joined duty at New Delhi. Later, he was transferred to Hyderabad. Then he was again transferred to China from Hyderabad on 23.6.98 and joined duty at China on 29.6.98. As he was continuing in the promoted post only on ad hoc basis, he submitted a representation dated 17.11.98 to the concerned authority for regularising his appointment. Thereafter, he issued a legal notice to the concerned authority on 13.9.2000. Since he did not receive any response from the concerned authority, he moved before the Tribunal by filing O.A.1278/2000 wherein he was seeking the relief of confirmation in the post of Assistant Drugs Controller on the basis of 1995 roster. The said Application was disposed of by an order dated 2.11.2000 with a direction to the concerned authority to dispose of the representation of the second respondent dated 17.11.1998 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The said Application was disposed of by an order dated 2.11.2000 with a direction to the concerned authority to dispose of the representation of the second respondent dated 17.11.1998 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, the concerned authority disposed of the said representation by a communication dated 12.4.2001 in F.No.A.12016/6/94-D. Aggrieved over the said communication issued to him, the second respondent has filed O.A.465/2001 before the Tribunal wherein he sought for the relief of confirmation of his promotion in the post of Assistant Drugs Controller from the date of his promotion (order in No.A.12016/4/94-D) dated 28.6.95 and also he sought for the relief of quashing the communication dated 12.4.2001. 3. The Tribunal after hearing the arguments advanced by either side,passed the following Order: "For the foregoing reasons, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned communication dated 12.4.2001. We direct the respondents to confirm the promotion of the Applicant from the date of his ad hoc promotion. The Application is allowed as above." As against the said order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the present writ petition is being filed by the Drug Controller General of India seeking for the relief of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to O.A.465/01 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal,Madras Bench and to quash the same. 4. The only point that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the relief sought for by the petitioners herein can be entertained or not? 5. It is an admitted fact that the concerned authority considered the continuous experience of the second respondent as Drugs Inspector and promoted him as Assistant Drugs Controller on 6.3.1991 directing him to join duty at New Delhi. Despite sufficient time has been given, the second respondent by showing some personal inconvenience before the concerned authority, was not inclined to join in that post at New Delhi and therefore, the said order was cancelled by the concerned authority on 30.6.92. However, On the basis of the decision taken in the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held at New Delhi, he was promoted as Assistant Drugs Controller on ad hoc basis and directed him to join duty in that post on 24.7.95 at New Delhi. As per instruction, the second respondent joined duty in that post at New Delhi. However, On the basis of the decision taken in the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held at New Delhi, he was promoted as Assistant Drugs Controller on ad hoc basis and directed him to join duty in that post on 24.7.95 at New Delhi. As per instruction, the second respondent joined duty in that post at New Delhi. Thereafter, after serving a brief period at Hyderabad, he was transferred to Chennai. As stated above, while he was working as Assistant Drugs Controller at Chennai, he submitted a representation before the concerned authority on 17.11.98 for the regularisation of his appointment from 24.7.95. Following the said representation, he also issued a legal notice to the concerned authority on 30.9.2000. Since he did not receive any response from the concerned authority, he moved before the Tribunal seeking the relief of confirmation of the said post on the basis of 1995 roster. It is also an admitted fact that the Tribunal after hearing the second respondent passed the order directing the concerned authority to consider the representation of the second respondent and dispose of the same within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. However, the concerned authority considered the representation and thereafter issued a communication dated 12.4.2001 in its vide Order No.A.12016/6/94-D. Since the authorities were not inclined to consider the case of the second respondent and to regularise his appointment, he moved the Tribunal in O.A.465/01. The Tribunal allowed the said O.A directing the respondents to confirm the promotion of the second respondent from the date of his ad hoc promotion. As against the said order, the Drugs Controller General of India, has filed this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently emphasising the following grounds for rejecting the plea of the second respondent: i. It is pointed out that even though the concerned authority had given promotion to the second respondent on 6.3.91, the respondent did not respond to the offer of appointment and wilfully avoided to join in the post at the relevant period. In such circumstances, when considering this aspect, ordering the regularisation of the appointment of the second respondent from the date of his ad hoc promotion is manifestly unjust and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. ii. In such circumstances, when considering this aspect, ordering the regularisation of the appointment of the second respondent from the date of his ad hoc promotion is manifestly unjust and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. ii. It is pointed out that one of the Officer namely, P.K.Rastagi who was recommended by the Departmental promotion Committee was senior to the second respondent. His promotion was considered by the concerned authority only on 12.12.01. In such circumstances, if the relief sought for by the second respondent could be allowed, then, there will be anomaly which would be created by the regularisation of the second respondent's appointment with effect from 28.6.95. iii. It is pointed out that even though Departmental Promotion Committee was convened during the month of April 1995, the concerned authority has not considered the promotion of the second respondent for the reason that he was not at all placed in the Zone of consideration during the relevant period. Since he happens to be the Scheduled Tribe Community, the concerned authority considered his case and promoted him on ad hoc basis. That promotion was given to the second respondent pending consideration of the Reservation Promotion. 7. In this connection, learned counsel would point out that the Tribunal while considering the matter, has not at at all considered the relevant points and the case of the second respondent. In spite of the promotion offered to him by the concerned authority, the same was wilfully omitted to be availed of by the second respondent. Further, it is pointed out that since the second respondent has not challenged the ad hoc promotion dated 24.7.95 immediately after the issuance of the said order to him, he has no right to claim regularisation of his appointment for the reason that the relief sought for by him was clearly barred by limitation. Emphasising the above said reasons, learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that such being the case of the second respondent, the order of the Tribunal regularising his post as Assistant Drugs Controller from the date of his appointment, is not at all sustainable under law and liable to be set aside. 8. Since the second respondent has not challenged the ad hoc promotion dated 24.7.1995 before the Court of law, learned counsel would point out that the Revision petitioner's claim challenging the same is barred by limitation. 8. Since the second respondent has not challenged the ad hoc promotion dated 24.7.1995 before the Court of law, learned counsel would point out that the Revision petitioner's claim challenging the same is barred by limitation. In such circumstances, learned counsel would point out that he could not seek the relief of confirmation of the post from then date of his promotion (i.e)24.7.1995 In support of his contention, learned Senior Central Government Standing counsel Mr.Kannan relied on the decision reported in 2001(10) Supreme Court Cases,537 (Y.Ramamohan and others VS Government of India and others ) for consideration. 9. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in A.I.R.1996 S.C.2775 (Dr.Surinder Singh Jamwal and another Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and others) wherein Supreme Court observed as under: " Under the rules the regular recruitment to the posts shall be made by the Public Service Commission. Consequently, the ad hoc appointments would be only temporary appointments de hors the rules, pending regular recruitment without conferring any right to regularisation of service. This Court in Narinder Mohan's case (1994 AIR SCW 1701)had given the following directions: Accordingly,we set aside the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court and confirm those of the single Judge and direct the State Government of the J & K to notify the vacancies to the PSC which would process and complete the selection, as early as possible, within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this order. The State Government should on receipt of this recommendation in make appointments in the order mentioned in the selection list with in a period of two months thereafter. Since the respondents have been continuing an ad hoc doctors, they shall continue till the regularly selected candidates are appointed. They are also entitled to apply for selection. In case any of the respondents are barred by age, the State Government is directed to consider the cases for necessary relaxation under Rule 9(3) of the age qualification. If any of the respondents are not selected, the ad hoc appointment shall stand terminated with the appointment of the selected candidate. The direction sought for by Dr.Vinay Rampal cannot be given. His appeal is accordingly dismissed and the State Appeal is also dismissed. If any of the respondents are not selected, the ad hoc appointment shall stand terminated with the appointment of the selected candidate. The direction sought for by Dr.Vinay Rampal cannot be given. His appeal is accordingly dismissed and the State Appeal is also dismissed. The appeals of the PSC are accordingly allowed but in the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs." 10. Learned counsel would contend that the second respondent has lost his credibility to seek the relief of confirmation of his appointment before the Court of law as the same is barred by limitation. Such relief could not be granted to him as he approached the Court only at a belated stage. Further it is pointed out that regularisation could not be considered from 24.7.95 for the reason that the said post does not confer any right. The said fact was also clearly mentioned in para (4) of the letter dated 12.4.2001 issued by Directorate General of Health Services to the second respondent. Further, when such status conferred by the concerned authority was not responded by the second respondent in the letter and spirit , he is not entitled to the said relief as he lost his credibility. In such circumstances, the relief granted by the Tribunal is liable to be dismissed. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would emphasis the following points for consideration: With regard to the consideration of the promotion in the of Assistant Drugs Controller of India, such promotion has been considered by the concerned authority by following the existing vacancy post of reservation and offered such promotion to him during the year 1991 and though the same was not availed of by the second respondent and he was not estopped from seeking regularisation of the said post from the date of such post. In support of his contention, Learned counsel relied on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of I.K.Sukhija VS Union of India reported in 1998(1) Services Law Reporter,294 wherein the Supreme Court held: " the promotions of the appellants as A.Es (E) were not contrary to any statutory recruitment rules. In support of his contention, Learned counsel relied on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of I.K.Sukhija VS Union of India reported in 1998(1) Services Law Reporter,294 wherein the Supreme Court held: " the promotions of the appellants as A.Es (E) were not contrary to any statutory recruitment rules. Even if we proceed on the basis that in the absence of statutory rules the draft recruitment rules of 1969 were applicable, what we find is that the appellants were eligible for promotions and their cases were duly considered by the D.P.C. They were promoted after they were found suitable by the D.P.C. And their promotions were made according to their placement in the merit list and not according to their seniority. When the appellants were promoted, though on ad hoc basis, clear vacancies were available in the promotion quota. The only reason for making their appointments as temporary and ad hoc was that the draft recruitment rules could not be finalised till 1975. There was no unusual spurt in the construction activity between 1970-1977 which necessitated giving of urgent temporary promotions. For all the reasons stated above, it is not possible to accept that the appointments of the appellants as A.Es though temporary and ad hoc were by way of stop-gap arrangements only" 12. Emphasising the legal positions rendered in the above stated decision, learned counsel for the second respondent would point out that considering the valid reasons stated by the second respondent before the Tribunal, the Tribunal considered the case of the second respondent and accordingly,the relief sought for by him has been granted by the Tribunal in his favour. Such being the case, the relief granted in favour of the second respondent could not be set aside. 13. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has stated that one Mr.P.K.Rastogi who was considered as a senior to the second respondent, was given promotion on 12.12.2001 and if the relief granted by the Tribunal is to be carried out , then there will be a discrimination between Rastogi and the second respondent. In such circumstances, learned senior Central Government Standing counsel would state that the case of the second respondent may be considered in such a way that the discrimination should be avoided while granting the relief sought for by the second respondent. In such circumstances, learned senior Central Government Standing counsel would state that the case of the second respondent may be considered in such a way that the discrimination should be avoided while granting the relief sought for by the second respondent. Moreover, it is further pointed out that the service of the second respondent is going to be ended by the end of this month. In such circumstances,considering all aspects, necessary orders can be passed. 14. we have considered the arguments advanced on either side and also considered the various reasons put forth by them. It is no doubt true that the decision of the Supreme Court in I.K.SUKHIJA v. UNION OF INDIA (1998 (1) SLR 294) apparently supports the case of the second respondent. It is also relevant to notice that the second respondent was granted ad hoc promotion in April, 1995 initially for a period of six months which was extended periodically for every six months, but the second respondent did not choose to challenge either the initial promotion or the extension granted on ad hoc basis on the ground that he should have been promoted on regular basis for nearly a period of six years. Though the second respondent might have made some representation for his regularisation of service, that would not be sufficient as the fact remains that the petitioner has approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 2001 after a period of nearly six years from the date of ad hoc promotion. The question whether the promotion was contrary to the Recruitment Rules has also to be considered in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in AJIT SINGH II v. STATE OF PUNJAB (1999)7 SCC 209 : AIR 1999 SC 3471 ) and AJIT SINGH III v. STATE OF PUNJAB (2000)1 SCC 430 ). The question whether the promotion was contrary to the Recruitment Rules has also to be considered in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in AJIT SINGH II v. STATE OF PUNJAB (1999)7 SCC 209 : AIR 1999 SC 3471 ) and AJIT SINGH III v. STATE OF PUNJAB (2000)1 SCC 430 ). However, we are of the view on the facts of the case that it is not necessary to consider the larger question whether the initial promotion of the second respondent as Assistant Drugs Controller was made following the procedure prescribed under the Rules and when he continued in the post, he should be regularised from the date of his initial promotion or whether his initial promotion as Assistant Drugs Controller was made on ad hoc basis as a stop-gap arrangement and not in accordance with the Rules, as we find that the date of superannuation of the second respondent is 30.11.2003 and he is to retire shortly. We find that along with the second respondent, there were two others who were promoted on ad hoc basis, namely, P.K.Rastogi and Surendhirakumar and the service of P.K.Rastogi who is senior to the second respondent was confirmed only with effect from 12.12.2001. We are therefore of the view that if the services of the second respondent as Assistant Drugs Controller are regularised from April, 1995, it would unsettle the seniority of the officers above him who were promoted in the meantime and it would also create administrative problems as the existing seniority list has to be set aside and redrawn and it is well-established that seniority is not a fundamental right, but a civil right to be governed by the Service Rules. Though the second respondent's petition cannot be thrown away on the ground of laches, yet in moulding the grant of appropriate relief, the unduly long delay of six years in approaching the Tribunal cannot be ignored altogether. In this connection, it is relevant to notice the decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS ETC. v.AGHORS NATH DEY AND OTHERS ( 1993 (3) SCC 371 ) and the recent decision of the Supreme Court in SAINATH REDDY, A.G. v. THE GOVT. OF A.P. (2003 (4) CTC 571). In this connection, it is relevant to notice the decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS ETC. v.AGHORS NATH DEY AND OTHERS ( 1993 (3) SCC 371 ) and the recent decision of the Supreme Court in SAINATH REDDY, A.G. v. THE GOVT. OF A.P. (2003 (4) CTC 571). The Supreme Court in Aghors Nath Dey's case ( 1993 (3) SCC 371 ) has held that if there is any delay in curing the defects on account of any fault of the appointee, the appointee would not get the full benefit of the earliest period on account of his default, the benefit being confined only to the period for which he is not to be blamed. The Supreme Court also held that the decision about the nature of the appointment for determining whether it falls in the category A or B as pointed out by the Supreme Court has to be made on the basis of the terms of the initial appointment and the provisions in the rules. The Supreme Court held that in such cases, the deficiency in the procedural requirements laid down by the rules has to be cured at the first available opportunity without any default of the employee and the appointee must continue in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his services, in accordance with the rules. Hence, we confirm the order of the Tribunal, however, subject to the direction that instead of the direction given by the Tribunal to confirm the second respondent as Assistant Drugs Controller from the date of his initial promotion, the second respondent shall be confirmed with effect from 12.12.2001 in the post of Assistant Drugs Controller as he has been working in the said post for nearly six years. The second respondent is given liberty to approach the authorities if the seniority of P.K.Rastogi in the post of Assistant Drugs Controller is refixed in the hierarchy of seniority list at a later point of time prior to 12.12.2001 or the seniority of his juniors in the post of Assistant Drugs Controller is refixed from the date of initial promotion made on ad hoc basis. With the liberty so granted to the second respondent to approach the authorities, we confirm the order of the Tribunal subject to the direction that the second respondent shall be confirmed in the post of Assistant Drugs Controller with effect from 12.12.2001. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.