RAJASTHAN COMMERCIAL TAXES SUBORDINATE SERVICES (GENERAL BRANCH) RULES, 1975

Rule 47

Recruitment of Departmental Promotees - Validity of order that appellants ('direct recruits' or 'DRs') were not entitled to claim seniority over and above the respondents ('departmental promotees' or 'DPs') - Eligibility of DPs to be recruited -

Division Bench of the High Court set aside an order made by Single Judge of that court and held that Appellants ('direct recruits' or 'DRs') were not entitled to claim seniority over and above the respondents,('departmental promotees' or 'DPs'). DRs approached the High Court in the first instance, claiming that the seniority list, showing the DPs in earlier positions, was untenable; the single judge allowed that petition. Division Bench, however, allowed the appellants (DRs) to question the eligibility of DPs to be recruited. Held: From the entire rule [rule 27(1) and the two provisos) what was evident was that before the amendment of 2002, 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. 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. 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. 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 later. Plainly, 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 was 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 short-listing, calling of candidates for interviews, etc.), during which period, a subsequent recruitment may be undertaken. 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 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.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT