1. Heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The State respondents are represented by Ms. G. Deka, the learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. The private respondent Nos. 4 to 13 are represented by Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel. 2. The petitioners are Accounts Officers/Treasury Officers in the Finance and Accounts Service in Arunachal Pradesh. After they were promoted on “ad hoc” basis on different dates in between 20.04.1990 - 28.9.1994, their services were regularized w.e.f. 20.5.1996 by the common regularization order dated 26.6.1998 (Annexure C). The petitioners claim retrospective regularization from the date of their “ad hoc” promotion and consequential correction of their respective position in the seniority list dated 23.11.2009 (page 67), where the private respondent Nos. 4 to 13 are shown at seniority position 40 to 49 - above the petitioners. 3. The petitioners were initially appointed as Inspecting Auditors/Sub-Treasury Officers (IA/STO) in between 6.10.1987 to 11.11.1987. They were then promoted on “ad hoc” basis to the post of Accounts Officers/ Treasury Officers. The appointment of Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer is governed by the Arunachal Pradesh (Accounts Officer/ Treasury Officer) Recruitment Rules, 1984 and the Accounts Officers / Treasury Officers’ (Group-D) Recruitment Rules, 1993 ( ‘the R. R. 1984’ and ‘R.R. 1993’). Four modes of recruitment, i.e. (i) direct recruitment; (ii) by promotion; (iii) by, deputation transfer; (iv) by limited departmental competitive examination is contemplated by the Rules. But none of the petitioners were inducted by any of the prescribed methods in the R. R. 1984 or R. R. 1993. They were, in fact appointed on “ad hoc” basis, as can be seen from the petitioners’ promotion orders (Annexure B series). The private respondent Nos. 5, 9 and 12, on the other hand were directly recruited as Accounts Officers/Treasury Officers on 7.8.1992, 3.6.1994 and 17.1.1995 respectively while the remaining private respondents were inducted in the cadre through limited departmental competitive examination, on different dates starting from 28.12.1992 to 18.1.1996. 4. The following chart reflects their respective position: LIST OF DATES IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS Petitioner, No. & initial post in which appointed. 4. The following chart reflects their respective position: LIST OF DATES IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS Petitioner, No. & initial post in which appointed. Appointment as I. A/S.T.O. Eligibility for promotion to A.O/T.O. Promotion to A.O/T.O. Regularization as A.O/T.O. T.G. Khrime P/l as I.A. 6.10.1987 6.10.1990 20.4.1990 20.5.1996 Hage Tari P/2as I.A. 9.10.1987 9.10.1990 4.9.1991 20.5.1996 D.N. Buragohain P/3 as I.A. 24.2.1987 24.2.1990 24.8.1990 20.5.1996 S.K. Chakraborty P/4 as S.T.O. 12.2.1986 12.2.1994 30.6.1990 20.5.1996 Pura Sambyo P/5 as I.A.. 27.10.1987 27.10.1990 7.10.1993 20.5.1996 Niranjan Hens P/6 as S.T.O. 16.11.1987 16.11.1995 14.10.1993 20.5.1996 B. M. Paul P/7 as I.A..16.10.1987 16.10.1990 11.10.1994 20.5.1996 Suresh Kuma T P/8 as I.A. 8. 10.1987 8.10.1990 9.10.1994 20.5.1996 Tagofrg Talom P/9 as I.A. 11.11.1987 11.11.1990 28.9.1994 20.5.1996 LIST OF DATES IN RESPECT OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS SI. No. Respondent Number Appointment to the post of AO/TO Mode of appointment/ recruitment 1, Sange Wangchu -R/4 28.12.1992 LDCE’ 1992 2. Karluk Ronya -R/5 7.8.1992 DR’ 1992 3. S. Bhomick -R/6 6 6.1994 LDCE’ 1994 4. M.M. Sen-R/7 29.4.1994 LDCE’ 1994 . 5. P. Bhattacharjee -R/8 26.4.1994 LDCE’ 1994 6. TageTalin-R/9 3.6.1994 DR’ 1994 7. N.K. Bhandophadya -R/10 19.5.1994 LDCE’ 1994 8. 9.Senko Yottgam - R/ll TameTabin-R/12 20.12.1995 17.1.1995 LDCE ‘1995 DR’ 1995 10. Mage Guth - R/13 18.1.1996 LDCE’ 1995 5. While the petitioners were serving as Accounts Officers/Treasury Officers on “ad hoc” basis, the Departmental Promotion Committee (‘the DPC’) on 16.5.1996 after considering the cases of the “ad hoc” appointees, recommended them for regular promotion. It was specifically directed that inter se seniority in the cadre should be fixed after their appointment on regular basis. As the communication of the DPC’s recommendation was made on 20.5.1996, as earlier noted, the services of the petitioners were regularized w.e.f. 20.5.1996 through the order dated 26.6.1996 (Annexure C. 6. As most of the petitioners were in service in the Cadre of Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer since before the private respondents, they claim restoration of their seniority above the later appointees by taking into account their “ad hoc” service, in the cadre of Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer. 7. 1 Mr. As most of the petitioners were in service in the Cadre of Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer since before the private respondents, they claim restoration of their seniority above the later appointees by taking into account their “ad hoc” service, in the cadre of Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer. 7. 1 Mr. N. Ratan, learned counsel submits that the petitioners were promoted in regular vacancies and since the convening of the DPC is not within the control of the petitioners, the fortuitous date of the meeting of the DPC cannot be the basis for regularising the service of the petitioners, for the purpose of seniority in the cadre. To argue that the State is under obligation to hold regular DPC for considering promotion to the available vacancies, the petitioner relies upon the decision in Union of India and Ors. v. N.R. Banerjee and Ors., (1997) 9 SCC 287 . 7.2 Referring to the Arunachal Pradesh (Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer) Recruitment Rules, 1984, the petitioners contend that after 3 years of regular service, Inspecting Auditors become eligible for promotion and after 8 years of regular service Sub-Treasury Officers, become eligible for promotion to the Cadre of Accounts Officer /Treasury Officer. However, the experience required in the R.R. 1993 is 3 years only, in the feeder cadre. Mr. Ratan projects that well before the private respondents were inducted in that cadre through the direct recruitment/ limited departmental competitive examination, the petitioners completed the qualifying service in the feeder cadre for promotion. 7. 3 However, even before completing the qualifying service in the feeder cadre the petitioner Nos. l, 2, 4 and 6 were given “ad hoc” promotion and because of this the counsel argues that their “ad hoc” service for the purpose of seniority should at least be counted from the date, each of them completed the qualifying service in the feeder cadre. 7.4 Mr. Ratan submits that since the petitioners were placed in higher seniority position than the private respondents, earlier they did not need to challenge the prospective recommendation and regularization given to them in the higher cadre. But now that the position is changed in the impugned seniority list, the counsel argues that “ad hoc” service should be counted for seniority. In support of his contention, Mr. But now that the position is changed in the impugned seniority list, the counsel argues that “ad hoc” service should be counted for seniority. In support of his contention, Mr. Ratan relies upon the decision in L. Chandra Kishore Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors., (1999) 8 SCC 287 , where the Supreme Court held that in case of officiating appointment followed by confirmation, unless a contrary Rule is shown, service rendered in officiating appointment cannot be ignored, for determining a place in the seniority list. 8. 1 For the private respondents, Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel submits that all the respondents were inducted under the applicable R.R. either through direct recruitment or through the limited departmental competitive examination. Accordingly, the petitioners’ appointments were de hors the R.R. whereas the private respondents were regularly appointed. 8. 2 The respondents’ lawyer refers to the RR1984 as well as the RR1993 to project that appointment by promotion on “ad hoc” basis is not a prescribed mode of appointment to the posts of Accounts Officer/ Treasury Officer and accordingly the counsel argues that the “ad hoc” service cannot be considered for determination of seniority of the petitioners. In support of his contention, Mr. Pertin relies upon the decision in Union of India v. Dharampal and Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 170 . 8. 3 Referring to the pleadings of the petitioners’ Mr. Pertin argues that the petitioners never challenged the prospective recommendation of the DPC made on 16.5.1996 nor have they ever challenged their prospective regularization ordered on 26.6.1996. Accordingly, the respondents contend that the claim for downgrading the private respondents in the seniority list to place them below the petitioners, is not at all justified. 9. Representing the State authorities, Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate submits that the petitioners were promoted as Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer on “ad hoc” basis and such “ad hoc” services cannot be counted for granting them seniority with retrospective implication. She relies upon the case, of State of Rajasthan v. J.N. Chaturvedi, AIR 2010 SC 157 in support of the State’s stand. 10. G. Deka, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate submits that the petitioners were promoted as Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer on “ad hoc” basis and such “ad hoc” services cannot be counted for granting them seniority with retrospective implication. She relies upon the case, of State of Rajasthan v. J.N. Chaturvedi, AIR 2010 SC 157 in support of the State’s stand. 10. From the arguments and the pleadings, the issue before the court is whether the petitioners are entitled to have their “ad hoc” service counted for determination of their seniority in the Cadre of Accounts Officer/ Treasury Officer even though, they were not promoted by any of the 4 prescribed mode of appointment, under the RR, 1984 or the RR, 1993. 11. Before proceeding any further in the case, it may be appropriate to consider whether the State has a responsibility for constitution of DPC at yearly interval to consider promotion to Cadre of Accounts Officer/ Treasury Officer. In the case cited by the petitioners, i.e., N.R. Banerjee (supra), the Apex Court while declaring that DPCs should be convened every year had based their decision on the guideline applicable in the facts of that case. But in the R.R. 1984 or the R.R. 1993 in the present case, there is no such requirement for the DPC to sit every year or at any given interval. Therefore, I am of the view that the case of N.R. Banerjee (supra) relied by the petitioners is distinguishable on facts and cannot be the basis for enforcing an obligation on the State respondents to have DPC convened on a regular basis, whenever qualifying service is achieved in the feeder cadre. 12. It may also be necessary to consider the pleadings in the case. The petitioners were regularized w.e.f. 20.5.1996 through the order dated 26.6.1996 and yet they do not challenge their prospective regularization. Even when they claim restoration of their seniority, the prospective effect of the recommendation of the DPC is unchallenged in the case. Seniority in the promoted cadre cannot be considered without giving retrospective effect to the petitioners’ promotion. But prospective promotion is not even challenged in the case. Thus, the case will depend upon whether the “ad hoc” service can be reckoned for seniority. 13. Seniority in the promoted cadre cannot be considered without giving retrospective effect to the petitioners’ promotion. But prospective promotion is not even challenged in the case. Thus, the case will depend upon whether the “ad hoc” service can be reckoned for seniority. 13. The petitioners ‘appointment on “ad hoc” basis was not by any of the 4 modes prescribed by the R.R. Therefore, it is apparent that their appointment was de hors the Rules. In fact, few of the petitioners were appointed even without completion of the qualifying service in the feeder cadre. In such situation, the ratio in Union of India v. Dharampal, (2009) 4 SCC 170 is relevant where the Apex Court held that where. Initial appointment is “ad hoc” and not according to Rules, such service does not count for seniority. Therefore, the issue has to be answered against the petitioners. Furthermore, since it is a case of “ad hoc” appointment dc hors the Rules and not a case of appointment on probation followed by confirmation, the law in L. Chandra Kishore Singh (supra) is distinguishable and cannot be applied in this case, to give relief to the petitioners. 14. In view of above, the case is found to be without merit and the same is dismissed without any order on cost.