In Brief
The appellants, promoted as Land Records Inspectors through a limited competitive departmental examination in 2014, sought retrospective seniority from the year vacancies arose (2008-11) rather than from their substantive appointment date. The State had originally denied them the benefit of a 2014 rule amendment that granted seniority based on recruitment year. The Supreme Court held that retrospective seniority cannot be granted from dates when employees were not on the cadre. The deeming fiction for promotion against earlier year vacancies applies only to DPC-based promotions, not competitive examinations. Rule 171-A, as it stood then, mandated seniority from date of continuous officiation. The Court dismissed the appeals, finding the High Court Division Bench justified in rejecting the claim.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.