Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services (General Branch) Rules, 1975: r.27 – Seniority – Creation of post of Tax Assistant – Proposal to fill 80% by direct recruitment and 20% from amongst direct promotees – Advertisement issued on 25.01.2011 for recruitment of direct recruits – On 24.05.2011, advertisement issued for filling up of 20% quota for direct promotees – Result of written examination held for direct promotees announced on 14.06.2011 and promotion letters issued on 23.06.2011 – Provisional results for the test held for direct recruits declared on 16.05.2011 – Appointment orders of the direct recruits issued on 04.07.2011 after the police verification and medical test – In the seniority list published on 04.06.2013, those appointed as direct promotees in the 20% quota were shown as senior to the direct recruits – Direct recruits challenged the seniority list – Held: Advertisements (for filling up the entire cadre, in both the quotas or streams of recruitment) were issued one after the other – This was the first selection and recruitment to a newly created cadre – Delay occurred on account of administrative exigencies (and also the completion of procedure, such as verification of antecedents), thus, the seniority of the promotees given on the basis of their dates of appointment, was justified by r.27 – Service Law – Inter se seniority. Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A reading of the entire rule (Rule 27 [1] and the two provisos) showed that (a) before the amendment of 2002, the seniority of personnel appointed to the “lowest categories of posts” in any department was to be determined as from the date of appointment; however, for promotees, it was to be from the date of selection; (b) after the amendment of 2002, seniority has to be fixed (by reason of Rule 27 (1)) as on the date of appointment to the post or service; (c) however, in the case of pre-state integration of state (of Rajasthan) or pre-integration of services, seniority could be “modified or altered by the Appointing Authority on an ad hoc basis”- this clearly was meant to be a “sunset” clause, i.e. operative for a limited period; (d) the second proviso,- which is the one pressed into service by the DRs, states that seniority of those selected earlier will be determined over those selected latter. [Para 29][961-G-H; 962-A-C]
2. The principal mandate of the rule is that seniority is determined on the basis of date of appointment (“shall be fixed from the date of their appointment”). Proviso (2) lists out two rules. The first is that those selected and appointed through a prior selection would rank senior to those selected and appointed through a later selection process. The High Court, in this case, was of the opinion that this rule (i.e., proviso) applied to selections from the same source, i.e., where two sets of direct recruits were appointed, those selected through a previous recruitment process, would rank senior to those recruited through a later recruitment process. This interpretation is, in this court’s opinion, salutary. There may be various reasons why the ultimate appointment of one batch of recruits may be delayed: challenges to some part of the recruitment process (such as shortlisting, calling of candidates for interviews, etc.), during which period, a subsequent recruitment may be undertaken. To forestall any apprehensions as to which of the appointees would be senior, and if those from the earlier process are appointed later, the proviso clarifies that candidates from the earlier process would rank senior, despite the main rule speaking of a date of appointment based seniority. The same logic would apply to departmental promotees, as well, if two batches of promotees are appointed through selection. The second limb of the second proviso clarifies that when merit-based, or seniority-based promotions are resorted to, the applicable norm would be seniority in the feeder cadre, to forestall any debate about the rule of merit (in the selection) being the guiding principle. [Para 30][962-C-G]
3. Keeping in mind that the advertisements (for filling the entire cadre, in both the quotas or streams of recruitment) were issued one after the other, and more importantly, that this was the first selection and recruitment to a newly created cadre, the delay which occurred on account of administrative exigencies (and also the completion of the procedure, such as verification of antecedents) the seniority of the promotees given on the basis of their dates of appointment, is justified by Rule 27 in this case. The impugned judgment is not erroneous; it does not call for interference. [Para 32][964-G-H; 965-A-B]
Prem Kumar Verma v. Union of India (1998) 5 SCC
457 : [1998] 2 SCR 763 – relied on.
Gajendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. CWP No. 4630 of 2017 ; S. Sundaram Pillai and others v. V. R. Pattabiraman and Other (1985) 1 SCC 591 : [1985] 2 SCR 643 ; J.K. Industries Ltd. and & Ors v. Chief inspector of Factories and Boilers & Ors (1996)
6 SCC 665 : [1996] 6 Suppl. SCR 798 ; Casio India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2016) 6 SCC 209 ; Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma and Ors. (2013)
11 SCC 451: [2012] 13 SCR 47 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.