ORAL JUDGMENT :- Rule. Rule is made returnable forthw finally heard with consent of both the parties. 2. Originally in all twenty-five (25) petitioners filed the present assailing the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal, Dhule in Complaint 144 of 2004. Out of them, the petitioners No. 12 to 22, 24 and 25 withdrew petition since they were absorbed and regularized in newly formed Na District, protecting their promotions in Class III cadre. The petitioners. 11 and 23 are the only aggrieved persons now and the petition is pres service only to their extent. They were Class IV employees working establishment of Dhule Zilla Parishad before they were temporarily promoted class III cadre on 18th March, 1997. All of them are promotees and we promotions in keeping the relevant recruitment rules. Rule 5 of Maharash Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, provides for appointment to the class III posts by promotion as well as nomination. Thus, there sources of appointment and the only barrier created by Rule 6 is t promotional posts shall not be filled in excess of 50%. Thus, the recruitment rules provide for filling up of promotional posts to the extent of 50 promotional posts are required to be filled up through the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The promotions of all the petitioner accordingly made through appropriate process by the DPC. They went eligible and as such were promoted to the class III cadre and since 1997 technical working on the promotional posts without interruption, though for technical purpose gap of one day was given while revising the orders of promotion from to time. Still, however, they were not regularized in the promotional posts in of continuous service in such posts and the incidental benefits, such as increments or the benefit of assured career progression scheme etc., were not made available to them. Feeling aggrieved, they filed a complaint (ULP) No. 2004 alleging that the Zilla Parishad, Dhule/respondent had adopted unfair labour practice. 3. The respondent-Zilla Parishad contended that the petitioners were oted on ad hoc basis, from time to time, only in order to fill up the posts as gap arrangement. They were not given regular promotions and as such they of claim any right. The Zilla Parishad contended that the petitioners cannot regularization when the regular procedure regarding the assessment of city and availability of sanctioned posts was not properly considered. They were not given regular promotions and as such they of claim any right. The Zilla Parishad contended that the petitioners cannot regularization when the regular procedure regarding the assessment of city and availability of sanctioned posts was not properly considered. One of contentions of the respondent was that only 25% of the posts could be filled up promotion in view of the Government Resolution dated 15th April, 1991.respondent further relied upon yet another Government Resolution dated August, 1996 which provided for temporary promotions as well temporary nations to the class III posts. The respondent submitted that it was not feasible to regularize the services of the petitioners and there was no unfair labour practice as such. 4. The learned Industrial Tribunal considered the rival contentions and held the promotions of the petitioners were purely temporary and they could not been regarded as regular promotees. The learned Industrial Tribunal further observed that the conduct of the petitioners was eloquent inasmuch as, they never bled about giving of one days gap and accepted the promotional orders d from time to time. The Industrial Court further observed that the petitioners cannot claim regularization when the promotions were only by way of gap arrangement. Consequently, the complaint filed by the petitioners came rejected with a direction that the case of each of them shall be considered regularization as and when they are found eligible. 5. The learned Counsel Shri Shelke contended that the approach of the Industrial Court is erroneous. He points out that for several years the petitioners working in Class III cadre. He further points out that the petitioners were d eligible for promotion. He points out that the promotions were given to after following the recruitment rules. So, it is his contention that one days ought not to have been given and it cannot make any difference in their s. He urged, therefore, to set aside the impugned judgment and to declare the petitioners are regular promotees and entitled to all the incidental benefits arising out of their promotions. As against this, the learned Counsel for respondent-Shri Nitin Chaudhari supported the impugned judgment and also upon "Keshav Chandra Joshi and others vs. Union of India and others", 1991 SC 284 in support of his contention. He argued that the promotions "fortuitous" and by way of stopgap arrangement. He urged to dismiss the on. 6. As against this, the learned Counsel for respondent-Shri Nitin Chaudhari supported the impugned judgment and also upon "Keshav Chandra Joshi and others vs. Union of India and others", 1991 SC 284 in support of his contention. He argued that the promotions "fortuitous" and by way of stopgap arrangement. He urged to dismiss the on. 6. Admittedly, the appointment orders were issued from time to time and services of the petitioners in the class III cadre have been continued. It is nobodys case that these petitioners suffered from lack of n qualifications. Though the expression "purely temporary" was used while the order of promotion yet, the nature of the promotion by itself is not temporary purpose. The promotions were effected on the vacant posts. I not the case of the Zilla Parishad that some tenure posts were created 0 basis and as such, so called stop gap arrangement was required to be the promotions were effected in regular manner and as per the provision relevant Recruitment Rules. So, these promotions cannot be treated as ‘fortuitous’ promotions. The expression "fortuitous" is used when official exigency filling of the posts either de hors the rules or immediately for some without asking the candidates to go through the routine procedure of pr The petitioners were not promoted de hors the recruitment rules and as such promotions could not be branded as fortuitous. The petitioners could. treated as temporary promotees for such a long period. 7. Though it is true that ad hoc arrangement can be made w vacancies are required to be filled up and such ad hoc appointees may not right of regularization yet, such ad hoc appointments cannot be continued a reasonable period. The petitioners could not have been put on such temporary promotion for years together. 8. The learned Counsel Shri Shelke would submit that some. petitioners were later on given further promotions on temporary basis. H further submit that some of the petitioners were allowed to appear departmental examinations for further ladder of promotion. Thus, some of them ere permitted to obtain eligibility for further promotions and have ahead. It would be impracticable and irrational to say that still they are temporary promotes. Such uncertainty in service career is impermissible. The Tribunal did not appreciate the legal status of the petitioners in the perspective and in keeping with the service law jurisprudence. Thus, some of them ere permitted to obtain eligibility for further promotions and have ahead. It would be impracticable and irrational to say that still they are temporary promotes. Such uncertainty in service career is impermissible. The Tribunal did not appreciate the legal status of the petitioners in the perspective and in keeping with the service law jurisprudence. The Tribunal has observed: "In my opinion, the complainants are not entitled to say so, be their promotion orders are minutely perused, then specifically it i in the said orders that, their promotions are purely temporary giving gap of one day, fresh promotion orders were issued from time, but at no point of time, the complainants have raised any voice they kept mum. So keeping silence on the part of the complainants relevant time, amounts to acceptance of stop-gap-arrangement the respondents." 9. As stated earlier, the promotions of the petitioners could not be re as stop gap arrangement inasmuch as, they were not promoted against temporary posts; nor they were promoted without eligibility for romotion. The petitioners were working on promotional posts though gap of a single day was being under the administrative orders of the Zilla Parishad. The petitioners required to keep silence due to the hope that one day or the other they w regularized. The hope of the petitioners was frustrated when some of the employees were regularized and their claims were not favourably considered. The conduct of the petitioners cannot be interpreted as their acceptance of called stop gap arrangement. For, they were the needy persons and there was no specific waiver of their right for promotion. Indeed, the promotions of the petitioner could not be regarded as irregular. 10. The learned Counsel Shri Chaudhari for the respondents invited my attention to the Government Resolution dated 15 April. 1991. He points out that 25% of the promotional posts were cleared for filling up by way of promotion. Consequently, the regularization could be only to the extent of 25% which were allowed to be filled in by way of promotion. The question of regularization would depend, no doubt. upon the availability of clear vacancies the quota of the promotees. The import of Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishadds District Services (Recruitment) Rules. ] 967 is that the finding up of the by promotions could be upto 50%. The administrative instructions given the Government Resolution dated 15th April. The question of regularization would depend, no doubt. upon the availability of clear vacancies the quota of the promotees. The import of Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishadds District Services (Recruitment) Rules. ] 967 is that the finding up of the by promotions could be upto 50%. The administrative instructions given the Government Resolution dated 15th April. 1991 cannot override the rules. Those administrative instructions were issued in order to cope up with the ion which existed at the relevant time and, accordingly, the promotions effected only to the extent of 25% of the available vacancies. It is not the of Zilla Parishadh respondents that excessive promotions were effected at that beyond 25% of the total vacancies in the cadre, The vacancies for each year required to be identified in accordance with the instructions contained in the Government Resolution dated ]5th April, 1991 and out of them, 25% ought to been filled by promotion. 11. Considering the tenor of the Government Resolution dated 16th August 1996, the additional posts created from 1st August, 1996 Were allowed to be filled up as per the roster and in accordance with the recruitment rules. The rider Was that if within three months of the promotion or nomination, as the may be, some candidates would be available as per selection list of the Selection Board, then such promotees or nominees could be reverted to their original posts. No Such selection list was available within the period of the said months after promoting the present petitioners and hence there was no ion to revert either of them. Consequently, the promotions of the petitioners required to be regularized in accordance with the availability of clear vacanies and approval of the posts which were created in the Government lotion dated 16th August, 1996. It was quite unfair to keep their claims for promotions in abeyance or in suspended position for such a long duration from onwards uptil 2003-04. I am of the opinion that the learned tribunal issued an error while observing that the petitioners had accepted the stop gap arrangement made by the respondents and hence their claims for regularization in promotional posts could not be granted. 12. Reliance placed on "Keshav Chandra Joshi and others vs, Union of and others" (Supra) appears to be misplaced. I am of the opinion that the learned tribunal issued an error while observing that the petitioners had accepted the stop gap arrangement made by the respondents and hence their claims for regularization in promotional posts could not be granted. 12. Reliance placed on "Keshav Chandra Joshi and others vs, Union of and others" (Supra) appears to be misplaced. The authority deals with the ion of seniority, ]n the present case, it is not necessary to consider the ion of seniority of the promotees and nominees. It is necessary to first regularize the promotions in accordance with the dates of vacancies available in the class III. cadre, place each of them appropriately in the common seniority list o grant benefit of increments etc. as may be available as a result of Such 13. In the result, I am inclined to hold that the respondents-Zilla Parishad committed unfair labour practice qua the petitioners and that the tribunal have allowed the complaint application. The impugned order deserves to be set aside and as such, the petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside respondents are directed to regularize the promotions of the petition accordance with the available vacancies, as per the roster points and in with the accelerated promotions of the reserved candidates as well available to the promotees and thereafter, to prepare a common seniority accordingly. The petitioners shall be given benefit of the increments, career progression scheme and other incidental benefits arising out promotions after preparation of the appropriate seniority list which a period drawn within a period or four months. The seniority list shall be prepare calling objections and adopting necessary procedure as required under the Rule made absolute in the above terms. Petition allowed with no order costs. Petition allowed