ORDER : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Rajender Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. D.K. Dubey, learned Sr. S.C.- I, appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Shristidar Mahato, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the notification No. 1/P-103/2015 Ka-2128 dated 09.03.2016 issued by the respondent no. 3 by which the respondent no. 5 has been given the charge to the post of Director, Animal Husbandry in addition to his post of Director Fisheries. A further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Director, Animal Husbandry as the said post is the cadre post of the officer working in the cadre of Animal Husbandry Department whereas the respondent no. 5 belongs to an altogether different cadre. The writ petitioner further prays for grant of substantial promotion to the petitioner on the post of Director, Animal Husbandry considering the fact that the petitioner is the senior most officer and is competent in all respect to be promoted substantially to the said post. 3. Averments made in the writ application reveals that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1981 as Touring Veterinary Officer (Grade-II) in the Department of Animal Husbandry. The petitioner in course of his service career had been given promotion and ultimately the petitioner was posted as In-charge Director, Animal Husbandry by notification no. 1177 dated 22.10.2014 by the order of the Department itself. The petitioner had represented the authorities for making necessary amendment in the notification dated 22.10.2014 by omitting the word "In-charge" as the petitioner claims that he was eligible in all respect to have been substantially promoted to the post of Director, Animal Husbandry. Anticipation of the petitioner for being permanently posted as Director, Animal Husbandry turned into anguish by virtue of the notification dated 09.03.2016 wherein the respondent no. 5 was directed to take over the additional charge of Director, Animal Husbandry in addition to the existing post of Director, Fisheries. The petitioner being aggrieved by notification dated 09.03.2016 has preferred the present writ application. 4. Mr. Rajender Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order dated 09.03.2016 is without any basis and de hors the provisions of law. The petitioner being aggrieved by notification dated 09.03.2016 has preferred the present writ application. 4. Mr. Rajender Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order dated 09.03.2016 is without any basis and de hors the provisions of law. It has been submitted that the petitioner being the senior most officer in his cadre was earlier posted as In-charge Director, Animal Husbandry and the respondents in fact should have promoted the petitioner substantially to the post of Director, Animal Husbandry. Learned counsel submits that as per the cadre of the Animal Husbandry Department the post of Director has to be filled up by promotion. It has also been submitted that the rules do not provide that any person outside the cadre can be appointed as an In-charge in absence of any provision with respect to deputation of a person to such cadre. It has also been submitted that the promotion rules itself specifies that all posts are to be filled up by the Departmental Promotional Committee based on seniority-cum-merit. Learned counsel has further questioned the power of the Department of Personnel Administrative Reform and Rajbasha in appointing the respondent no. 5 as In-charge Director as it is the Animal Husbandry Department which is the sole authority in filling up such posts. Continuing his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that ad-hoc arrangement cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc arrangement and since the petitioner is eligible in all respects being senior most officer in Animal Husbandry Department to be substantially appointed in the post of Director, Animal Husbandry the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside with a further direction to the respondents-authorities to consider the promotion of the petitioner to the said post. 5. Mr. D.K. Dubey, learned Sr. S.C.- I, has referred to the counter affidavit filed by the Department of Personnel Administrative Reform and Rajbasha and has stated that regular appointment vide promotion to the post of Director Animal Husbandry has to be made by the Department of Agriculture Animal Husbandry and Co-operative. 6. Mr. Shristidar Mahato, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5, has merely echoed what has been submitted by the learned State counsel. 7. The impugned order dated 09.03.2016 appointing the respondent no. 5 as In-charge Director, Animal Husbandry Department has been issued by the Department of Personnel Administrative Reform and Rajbasha. 6. Mr. Shristidar Mahato, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5, has merely echoed what has been submitted by the learned State counsel. 7. The impugned order dated 09.03.2016 appointing the respondent no. 5 as In-charge Director, Animal Husbandry Department has been issued by the Department of Personnel Administrative Reform and Rajbasha. This was done when the petitioner was already acting as In-charge Director pursuant to the order dated 22.10.2014. The rules which has been framed by notification dated 30.11.2013 reveals that the posts in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries has to be filled up on the basis of the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The Department of Personnel Administrative Reform and Rajbasha in its counter affidavit has not disputed the fact that the regular appointment to the post of Director Animal Husbandry has to be made by the Department of Animal Husbandry itself. The said statement conclusively supports the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Department of Personnel Administrative Reform and Rajbhasa is not the appointing authority or the authority for appointing the respondent no. 5 to act as In-charge Director. Even if it is assumed that the respondent no. 5 was made the In-charge Director on deputation but the rule also does not provide any person outside the cadre to be posted on deputation. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the respondent no. 5 being outside the cadre to which the petitioner belongs could not have been made Director In-charge has referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Housing Board Engineers Association And Another v. State of Gujarat And Others reported in (1994) 2 SCC 24 wherein it was held as:- "We have no doubt, therefore, that clause (3) does not set out an additional, fourth mode of filling in the said post but is only a provision which sets out how and when an Executive Engineer from the State Government's Building and Communication Department can be appointed to the said post on deputation. It provides that an appointment can be made of an Executive Engineer from the State Government's Building and Communication Department to the said post on deputation only if a suitable eligible candidate is not available for appointment by promotion from among the Executive Engineers of the housing Board." 9. The respondents have not disputed that the petitioner was not a suitable candidate or eligible candidate for being appointed as In-charge Director as earlier to the appointment of the respondent no. 5 it was the petitioner who was working as In-charge Director. As regards, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to an ad-hoc arrangement being replaced by another ad-hoc arrangement reference has been made to the case of Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab And Others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292 wherein it was held that the course adopted by the High Court is to displace one ad-hoc arrangement by another ad-hoc arrangement which is not at all appropriate for those persons who have gained experience. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied in the case of State of Haryana And Others v. Piara Singh And Others reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118 wherein it was held that an ad-hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. The respondents have apart from acting contrary to law in appointing the respondent no. 5 as In-charge Director by ignoring the candidature of the petitioner has further committed an illegality by replacing an ad-hoc arrangement with another ad-hoc arrangement. In either way the act of the respondents seem to be arbitrary, unreasonable and against the settled canons of law. 11. As consequence to the discussion made herein above, this application is allowed and notification no. 1/P-103/2015 Ka-2128 dated 09.03.2016 issued by the respondent no. 3 appointing the respondent no. 5 as In-charge Director, Animal Husbandry is, hereby, quashed and set aside with a further direction to the respondent no. 4 to take necessary and expeditious step for filling up the post of Director, Animal Husbandry Department instead of continuing with the practise of ad-hoc arrangement. 12. This writ petition stands disposed of.