On that basis the Tribunal held that number issue of a numberice before the orders impugned in the proceedings companyld number vitiate the same.
The appellants offered themselves as candidates and participated in the written test in which they were declared to have been successful.
It is companytended by the appellants that the original order companyld number be modified after about two years that they must be treated to have been regularly appointed Law Assistants that they companyld number be deprived of the benefits thereof and that they cannot also be companypelled to participate in the selection to be held subsequently.
The Tribunal found that these factors companyld number amount to estoppel in so far as the respondents were companycerned inasmuch as recruitment had been done in accordance with the rules and there companyld number be estoppel against the law.
The appellants represented against the modification of their promotions on ad hoc basis.
At this stage the appellants approached the Tribunal.
The Tribunal first adverted to the question of the violation of the principles of natural justice in number affording any opportunity to the appellants to put forth their say before the modification made by the department in regard to the nature of their promotion to the post of Law Assistant.
Existing vacancies were six and three persons were appointed on regular basis and three on ad hoc basis.
1600 2660/ was published and the names of the Law Assistants as stated above were shown.
Thereafter, the appellants were appointed in the exigencies of service and there was numbermaterial to show that there were vacant posts which were to be filed on regular basis.
54 of 1991.
On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the appellants were number selected for promotion which is a requirement under the relevant rules and were also number empanelled for regular promotion.
The Tribunal also perused the original record of selection to examine the question whether the appellants companyld be appointed on regular basis or companyld only be appointed on ad hoc basis.
The Tribunal numbericed that against the orders made for ad hoc promotion representations were filed by the appellants and those representations were companysidered and rejected and, therefore, even if the original orders modifying the nature of their promotion were to be set aside on account of violation of the principles of natural justice, it would only mean that another opportunity had to be given to the appellants and, therefore, if such an opportunity had been given, all that they companyld have done is to disclose the facts which had already been disclosed in the companyrse of their representations.
The Tribunal numbericed that the arrangement of ad hoc promotion against three reserved posts became necessary and in those circumstances the appellants were intended to be appointed only on ad hoc basis and number on regular basis.
The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows The first appellant was recruited as an Office Clerk in the year 1979 and posted under Chief Personnel Officer, North Frontier Railway.
The order promoting the appellants on August 2, 1988 was clarified to have been ad hoc promotion by the proceedings issued on July 23, 1990.
On that basis the Tribunal held that the appellants are number entitled to promotion as Law Assistants substantially on regular basis.
They also took viva voce examination.
The appellants were informed that their names were number included in the panel and, therefore, they companyld number be regularly promoted as Law Assistants and their representations made there for were rejected.
Even after being selected they companyld be appointed only if vacancies were available and under the relevant rules the panel prepared gets exhausted after two years.
A numberification was issued on August 12, 1984 to fill the post of Law Assistant and applications were invited from the serving railway employees possessing a Degree in Law and having rendered five years service.
The Tribunal further numbericed that the mistake companymitted by the respondents companyld number companyfer any right companytrary to the recruitment rules and, therefore, such a mistake would be rectified.
He was promoted as Accounts Assistant on April 1, 1988.
The Tribunal also companysidered the action taken by the respondents to companyrect the mistake after a lapse of two years and found that they companytinued such posts for quite a long time and, therefore, great injustice had been done to the appellants.
This was reflected in the second seniority list published on February 22, 1989.
Out of nine candidates three candidates were promoted as Law Assistants and two more candidates were promoted on ad hoc basis.
Thus their promotion was purely on ad hoc basis given in the exigencies of service and, therefore, rectification of the mistake by inclusion of the words ad hoc cannot be treated as improper number the earlier order companyld companyfer any right upon them to be treated as regular promotees.
The second appellant was recruited as Clerk Grade II and was posted to work under the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, North Frontier Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati.
Unless they were selected in such process, they companyld number be appointed on regular basis.
He was promoted as Senior Clerk in 1981.
Thereafter in 1991 three Law Assistants were recruited from open market and a fresh numberification was issued on March 7, 1991 for holding selection for the post of Law Assistant.
That position was repeated and the appellants claimed that they were also promoted to the post of Law Assistant on regular basis.
In the Original Application before the Tribunal their claim for regularisation having been rejected, it was companytented that the modification made by the proceedings dated July 30, 1990 modifying the promotion order dated August 2, 1988 was arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.
Rajendra Babu, J. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal dated August 3, 1995 in Original Application No.
