Manohar Lal Jat & Ors. Etc. vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Etc.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J

Leave granted. With consent of all the counsel for parties, the appeals were heard finally and judgement was reserved on 24th January 2020. These

appeals challenge the common judgement of the Rajasthan High Court [Sitting at its Jaipur Bench, in DB Special Appeal Writ Number 1053/2017 and

DB Special Appeal Writ No. 1250/2017].The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgement set aside an order made by the learned

single judge of that court and held that the present Appellants (hereafter referred to as “direct recruits†or “DRsâ€) were not entitled to claim

seniority over and above the respondents, hereafter called “departmental promotes†or “DPsâ€). The DRs had 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. The

Division Bench has, however, allowed the appellants to question the eligibility of DPs to be recruited.

The relevant facts are that on 01.09.2009, the Finance Department of the Government of Rajasthan granted approval for creation of 531 posts of

Tax Assistants. This newly created post was augmented by further 23 posts, which were added to the cadre; the final tally of such newly created

posts of Tax Assistants became 554. Amendments to the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services General Branch Rules, 1975, made with

effect from 01.12.2010, prescribed the manner of filling of posts of Tax Assistants. Schedule-I of the Amendment Rules defined the manner of filling

of the posts in the following terms:

“100% by direct recruitment:

(a) 80% by the appointing authority in accordance with Schedule III

(b) 20% by selection from amongst ministerial staff of the commercial taxes department that by way of departmental examination in

accordance Schedule IIâ€​

On 4th October 2010, a Departmental Selection Committee was constituted for recruitment of both categories and proceedings were initiated soon

filling all the for 554 posts of Tax Assistants. In accordance with the rules, it was proposed to fill the 80% quota of direct recruits to the extent of 443

vacancies and 111 from amongst DPs. Accordingly, on 25.01.2011 and advertisement was issued for recruitment of DRs. The written examination,

stipulated under the rules was conducted for recruitment of DR’s; thereafter a typing test was conducted on 15.05.2011. 356 candidates

participated in this typing test. On 16.05.2011, provisional results were declared for the test held for DRs. Thereafter letters were apparently written

by the Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes enclosing a list of successful candidates, to the police authorities for due verification of their

character and antecedents. On 24.05.2011, the department advertised for filling up of the 20% quota for DPs. Earlier the proposal was to hold the

written examination for the DPs on 24.06.2011; however, it was held earlier on 11.06.2011 and 12.06.2011. The results of these tests for the DPs

were announced on 14.06.2011 and the department issued promotion letters on 23.06.2011. On 24.06.2011 the appellants were issued with letters for

police verification and medical test. By this time however the DPs had already been promoted, and had taken charge of their posts. The appointment

orders of the DRs were issued subsequently; on 04-07-2011.

On 5th June, 2013, the Commercial Taxes Department of the State of Rajasthan published a seniority list in which those appointed as DPs, in the

20% quota were shown as senior to the DR/the appellants. Apparently, some of the DRs â€" including the appellants objected to this placement and

sought for correction of the seniority list [The third appellant, Ankur Kumar Bansal objected through a representation dated 27.06.2013, in effect

stating that the placement of DPs above the DRs was unjustified and contrary to the rules.]. Another provisional/tentative seniority list was issued on

15-05-2014, in which the position was no different inasmuch as the DPs were shown above the DRs. The appellants again objected; nevertheless on

18-09-2015 the Department substantially confirmed their previous positions in the final list published by it.

The Direct Recruits (DRs) filed one set of Writ Petitions [Manohar Lal Jat & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan &Ors.] contending that the seniority lists

were contrary to law. Yet another seniority list was issued by the Department on 30.05.2016 in which the previous position of the DPs was left

undisturbed. This became the subject matter of challenge before another proceeding [Gajendra Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan &Ors. CWP Np.

4630 of 2017]. Though the two writ proceedings had challenged the seniority position allotted to the DRs except the few DPs and official respondents,

no others were impleaded. The prominent grounds of attack in the writ petition, were that the recruitments of the DRs and DPs took place

simultaneously and that the departmental candidates were mala fide issued with appointment letters earlier, for no reason except to ensure that their

dates of entry into the cadre of tax inspectors were earlier, in order to favour their further career progression.

A learned Single Judge of the High Court by Judgment dated 25.05.2017 considered Rule 27 of the concerned Rules (hereafter called the

“Seniority Rulesâ€​) [Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services (General Branch) Rules, 1975].

The Single Judge took particular notice of Rule 27(2) which stated that those who undergo recruitment process in an earlier selection will be placed

at senior positions to those who undergo recruitment in a selection by a later process. The Single Judge concluded as follows:

“16. A glance of Rule 2 (1) would reveal that the advertisement dated 25th January, 2011, was issued with reference to the vacancies of

the year 2010-2011. Obviously, the advertisement dated 24th May, 2011, would be a recruitment process with reference to the vacancies of

the subsequent year 2011-2012. The respondents are curiously silent on this aspect in their counter affidavits as well as during the

arguments.

A conjoint reading of Rule 2(1) and 27 of the Rules of 1975, would leave no room of any doubt that the persons selected and appointed

as a result of a selection process, which is not subject matter to review and revision, shall rank senior to the persons who are selected and

appointed as a result of subsequent selection. Thus, the phrase “subsequent selection‟ under Rule 27 read with Section 2(1) leads to

logical conclusion that the petitioners are employees who were appointed in a previous selection and the private respondents (departmental

employees), are the persons who were accorded appointment in a “subsequent selection‟. Hence, those departmental candidates cannot

be allowed to march over and above in the seniority to the petitioners, who are the successful selected candidates of a previous selection

process.â€​

The DRs aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned Single Judge preferred appeals to the Division Bench Special Appeal Writ No. 1053 of 2017

and Special Appeal Writ No. 1250 of 2017.

Since all the Departmental Promotees (DPs) were not represented before the Single Judge, many of them preferred third party appeals. The

Division Bench by its impugned Judgment allowed these appeals by DPs after noticing that Rule 27 which had been relied upon by the Single Judge

had been amended. The Division Bench took note of the fact that after amendment with the amendment provisos have been added.

The Court held that the main provision of the Rule 27 was amended on 10.10.2002 which added a second proviso and that the proviso would

operate when two selections are for one and the same category. The relevant observations of the Division Bench are as follows:

“In our opinion, there is conflict between the main provision of rule 27 and second proviso. If proviso is applied taking into

consideration the earlier and subsequent selection followed by appointment then, in a given case, where a selection was started earlier to

subsequent but the appointment is given first to those selected pursuant to subsequent selection, the relevance of the date of appointment

gets nullified. It is because of appointment of the candidates pursuant to the subsequent selection prior to the appointment of the candidates

out of earlier selection. They would not get seniority despite earlier appointment and, thereby, significance to the date of appointment given

in Rule 27 would be violated. The proviso cannot nullify the main provision and, in those circumstances, consideration of two provisions

has to be made. The proviso would operate when two selections are for one and the same category.â€​

According to the Division Bench thus the two categories DPs and DRs were different and it was not open to the DRs especially after a long lapse

of time, to question the placement in the seniority list of the DPs. However, since the DRs/Original Writ Petitioners had argued before the Division

Bench about the ineligibility of DPs (or some of them) to participate in the selection â€"(which was held in 2011) that issue was kept open.

Arguments of parties

Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Prashant Bhushan appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that the Division Bench

ignored the fact that recruitments in this case were conducted with two different advertisements for the same post, the appellants who were from

open category against 80% quota were selected earlier and the other set of departmental employees were recruited later. In terms, the DR, answered

the description of having been selected earlier, and having participated in an earlier recruitment process. On the other hand, the DPS responded to a

different advertisement issued later, and underwent a separate selection process. Plainly, having regard to the express terms of the rule, i.e. Rule 27,

the seniority of the direct recruits (i.e. the appellants and others like them) had to be determined at posts earlier than or senior to the DPs who were

selected later.

It was argued that the mere incidence of issuance of earlier appointment letters could not have resulted in an undue and unfair advantage to the

DPs as to deprive the DRs of earlier slots of the common seniority lists. Elaborating on this aspect, learned counsel relied upon the observations of the

Single Judge and stated that selection or recruitment for the DR quota were advertised on 25.01.2011; the test was conducted on 17.04.2011 and on

16.05.2011 the select list for the DR category was published. However, the Commercial Taxes Department deliberately withheld issuing appointment

letters and released another advertisement to fill up the DP 20% quota of the ministerial employees who were working in the same department. The

departmental examination for the DP quota was conducted on two successive dates i.e. 11.06.2011 and 12.06.2011. The learned counsel highlighted

that this was despite the fact that the departmental test was originally scheduled later. Having proceeded to schedule the test earlier the state

proceeded with unusual speed and published the results of the DP category candidates for the 20% quota on 14.06.2011 and hastily issued

appointment letters on 23.06.2011. It was only thereafter that the appointment letters of DR category candidates (for the 80% open quota) were

issued. It was submitted that these circumstances ipso facto established malice against DRs and advertisement on the part of the State and its

officers, to grant undue and unfair advantage to the DP category of candidates.

Learned counsel highlighted that the representation/letter by the General Secretary of the Departmental Employees Association had pressurised

the Commercial Tax Department to recruit DPs earlier and relied upon a letter dated 19.05.2011. The conduct and action of the State in speeding up

the process of selection of the DP quota to the utter disadvantage of the DR recruits, was thus established from the record. The department in fact

given unprecedented priority, to select candidates for the 20% departmental quota.

Learned counsel also argued that the explanation given by the State for the delay that occurred in issuing appointment letters to the DR quota

candidates (which was that sometime was taken in police verification and medical check up) has to be considered in the light of these established

facts. The learned counsel emphasised that it was only after the appointment letters were issued to the DP candidates in the 20% category on

24.06.2011 that a mere 10 days later, i.e. 14.07.2011, appointment letters were issued to the DR candidates.

It was lastly argued that the Division Bench while ignoring the facts of the case, interpreted the rules (Rules 27 of the Rajasthan Commercial

Taxes Subordinate Service (General Branch) Rules, 1975 (in short, the Rules of 1975) incorrectly. The original Rule 27 which was amended by

notification dated 10.10.2002, which reckoned the seniority from the date of appointment. However, the proviso (2) of the Rules 27 was retained,

which clearly stipulates “that the persons selected and appointed as a result of selection, which is not subjected to review and revision,

shall rank senior to the persons who are selected and appointed as a result of subsequent selection. Seniority inter-se of persons selected

on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and on the basis of merit in the same selection shall be same as in the next below gradeâ€​.

It is argued that pertinently the intent of the rule, in retaining the proviso (2) of the said rule, was to avoid ambiguity in reckoning seniority, in the

cases wherein the selection for the same post i.e. “Tax Assistants’ is done through two different sources, wherein the date of advertisements

and selection processes are different. The proviso carves out an exception to the main provision, and the function of the proviso is to limit the main

part of the provision and carve out something which but for the proviso would have been within the operative part. This Court in various judgments

such as S. Sundaram Pillai and others Vs. V. R. Pattabiraman and Others (1985) 1 SCC 591; J.K. Industries Ltd. and & Ors Chief inspector

of Factories and Boilers & Ors 1996) 6 SCC 665, held “proviso is an exception to the main part of the section; but it is recognized that

in exceptional cases a proviso may be substantive provision itself.â€​

It is urged that the amended rule 27, only speaks about the seniority on the basis of date of appointment; however, the proviso (2) clarifies the rule

for reckoning seniority when there are two advertisements for the same post, filled through different categories (sources) of candidates. Therefore,

the main rule will only apply when the recruitment is through the same advertisement. It cannot be applied in a case where another advertisement is

issued for the same post after the release of the results of the first advertisement and appointment order is given in the later case. This process of

arbitrary recruitment will always deprive of the candidates in their order of seniority in their whole service tenure which is against the principles of

Article 14.

Dr. Manish Singhvi, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and Mr. R. Venkatramani, learned

Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents, i.e. the Departmental Promotee (DP) candidates, made their submissions. It was

argued on behalf of the State respondents that the permission for creation of 531 posts was given on 01.09.2009 and later 23 posts were added. The

recruitments in question resorted to in 2011, through the two advertisements issued (one for the 80% quota of DRs and other to fill up 20% quota of

DPs) was the first recruitment drive to fill up these newly created posts which had hitherto not existed. It was urged on behalf of the State that these

circumstances of the case are to be kept in mind from an important perspective i.e. the first attempt of the State to fill up a large number of posts after

they were encadred and were lying unfilled for nearly two years. Learned counsel submitted that no doubt advertisements to fill up the DR vacancies

were issued prior in point of time i.e. in January 201, however in response to this advertisement for the 80% vacancies (i.e. 443 vacancies) no less

than 15,352 applications were received; these has to be screened to determine eligibility of the candidates; thereafter the written examination was

conducted on 17.04.2011. A typing test was also conducted on 15.05.2011 for 356 candidates. A provisional result was declared on 16.05.2011. The

learned Additional Advocate General emphasized that the police verification and medical examination processes took a little while for such a large

number of candidates and was eventually completed on 01.07.2011.

It was urged that two months period for completing this process cannot be considered unreasonable for any stretch of imagination â€" since

Rajasthan is the largest State geographically and has about 35 districts. The advertisement for departmental candidates was in the meanwhile issued

on 24.05.2011. For filling 111 vacancies, 232 applications were received, written test was held on two dates i.e. 11th and 12th June, 2011. The DPs

were not required to undergo any typing test nor require police verification and medical examination since they were working with the Government for

a considerable period of time. The process for final appointment thus was relatively easy. In these circumstances their results were compiled and

published on 14.06.2011 but having regard to the simplified and shortened nature of the selection process they were appointed on 24.06.2011.

The learned Additional Advocate General and Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the Division Bench correctly

concluded that the underlying idea behind Rule 27 and the principle of seniority indicated by it which is that those selected earlier would rank earlier to

those selected later, would apply in the case of recruits in the same category. Thus, for instance, if within the DR quota there are two sets of

selections, the Rule enunciated in Rule 27, squarely applied, however that principle would be inapplicable where the recruits are appointed from

different categories such as promotees and direct recruits. In such cases the main part of the Rule i.e. seniority based upon the entry into the cadre

would squarely applied.

Learned senior counsel highlighted that the consistent view of this Court in several decisions has been to confine the proviso within the field of its

operation and not allow it to supplant the main or enacted portion contained in the provision of which the proviso relates to. It is thus urged that the

proviso cannot be interpreted as nullifying the enactment or taking away something conferred by the main section or provision. Learned counsel relied

upon certain decisions in this regard [Casio India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2016) 6 SCC 209 & Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma and

Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 451.]. The learned AAG emphasized that the facts on record show that the entire cadre was created for the first time by the

single notification dated 01.12.2010. The recruitment to the two categories occurred as a first time measure. That advertisements were issued on

different dates â€" one for direct recruits (DRs) and the other for direct promotees (DPs) did not make them separate recruitment processes. They

were contemporaneous in that the State intended the selected candidates to man the same post. Thus, it could not be argued that appointments made

in the 80% quota for DR candidates was for a previous year (having regard to the definition of “Yearâ€​ under the recruitment rules.

Rule 2 reads as follows:

“Definition â€" 2.In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a)…………..

(b)………………

xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx

(l) Year “means financial yearâ€​.

It was highlighted in this regard that the decision to conduct the recruitment and selection process was a composite one â€" though advertisements

were issued on separate dates. If one kept this in mind, it was clear that the entire recruitment process was a composite one. Given that the 80%

quota earmarked for DRs was available to candidates with different eligibility criteria, of necessity, a separate advertisement was issued. Similarly,

having regard to the fact that the 20% departmental promotion quota could be filled only by those working within the Commercial Tax Department

(and which could not be filled by DRs), a different kind of advertisement with relevant eligibility conditions was issued. This did not mean that separate

selection processes were held; since the department had vacancies in a new post for the first time, recruitment had to be considered common.

Relevant rules:

Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services (General Branch) Rules, 1975 was taken note of by the learned Single Judge.

The relevant extract of that Rule is reproduced below:

“27. Seniority “Seniority of persons appointed to the lowest post of the Service or lowest categories of posts in each of the

Group/Sections of the Service, as the case may be, shall be determined from the date but in respect of persons appointed by promotion to

other higher posts in the Service or other higher categories of posts in each of the Groups/Sections in the Service, as the case may be, shall

be determined from the date of their regular selection to such posts.

Provided

(1) That the seniority inter-se of the persons appointed to the Service before the commencement of the rules, and/or in process of integration

of the Services of the pre-reorganisation of States of Rajasthan or the Services of the new State of Rajasthan established by the State Re-

organisation Act, 1956, shall be determined, modified or altered by the Appointing Authority on an ad hoc basis;

(2) That the persons selected and appointed as a result of a selection, which is not subject to review and revision, shall rank senior to the

persons who are selected and appointed as a result of subsequent selection. Seniority inter se of persons selected on the basis of seniority-

cum-merit and on the basis of merit in the same selection shall be the same as in the next below grade;â€​

With effect from 10.10.2002, the main provision of Rule 27 was amended even while maintaining the two provisos below it. This was referred to

by the Division Bench in its impugned judgment. The amendment to the Rule is extracted below:

“AMENDMENT: In the column of the Schedule attached herewith, following words shall be substituted in place of every Service Rule

Col. No.4 with regard to substantial provisions (except their provisions) which means:-

“Seniority in respect of persons appointed on the posts included in the cadre of service shall be as per the provisions of these rules and

shall be fixed from the date of their appointment. Those appointed on ad hoc or urgent temporary basis, they shall not be considered after

their regular selection.â€​

The following provisos to the above main provision (i.e. Rule 27 [1]) were left intact:

“Provided that

(1) That the seniority inter-se of the persons appointed to the Service before the commencement of the rules, and/or in process of integration

of the Services of the pre-reorganisation of States of Rajasthan or the Services of the new State of Rajasthan established by the State Re-

organisation Act, 1956, shall be determined, modified or altered by the Appointing Authority on an ad hoc basis;

(2) That the persons selected and appointed as a result of a selection, which is not subject to review and revision, shall rank senior to the

persons who are selected and appointed as a result of subsequent selection. Seniority inter se of persons selected on the basis of seniority-

cum-merit and on the basis of merit in the same selection shall be the same as in the next below grade;â€​

Thus, the main provision was amended as to clearly provide that seniority in the cadre would be fixed from the dates of appointment of the

employees, or officers, to the cadre.

The question to be decided here is having regard to the fact that the DPs were concededly appointed prior to the DRs, where the latter, as is

argued by them appointed on the basis of merit “in the same selection†[Second proviso to Rule 27 (1)] The DRs argument is that their

appointment, later than the DPs is the result of manipulation by the department (or, rather some officers in the department) who wished to favor the

DPs; and that since their selections began before that of the DPs, the second proviso is attracted, for determination of inter se seniority. They also

argue that the selection- in terms of the rules, “subsequent selection†necessarily refers to a chronologically later event; in the present case, the

recruitment of the DRs began with the advertisement in January, 2011 (and thus, in the earlier financial year, having regard to Rule 2 (l)) whereas the

selection process for DPs began in May, 2011.

On a plain reading of the entire rule (Rule 27 [1] and the two provisos) what is evident is that (a) 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; (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 basisâ€- 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.

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

appointmentâ€). 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.

In Prem Kumar Verma v. Union of India (1998) 5 SCC 457 this court had to consider Rule 303 of the Railway Establishment Manual, which was

phrased like Rule 27 in the present case. The extract of the relevant discussion is as follows:

“4. In view of the rival submissions at the Bar the first question that would arise for consideration is which Rule would govern the inter

se seniority. It is undisputed that vacancies arose prior to July 1989 and advertisement for the said post had been issued earlier to July

1989 and finally the Railway Recruitment Board concluded its selection process and selected 29 candidates on 11-7-1989. Therefore, the

relevant Rules, as existed then, would govern the inter se seniority. The next question that arises for consideration is which is the relevant

Rule that was in force in July 1989. From the materials produced before us it appears that para 303 of the Manual, as it stood in July 1989

is to the following effect:

“303. The seniority of candidates recruited through the Railway Service Commission or by any other recruiting authority should be

determined as under:

(a) Candidates who are sent for initial training to training schools will rank in seniority in the relevant grade in the order of merit obtained

at the examination held at the end of the training period before being posted against working posts.

(b) Candidates who do not have to undergo any training, the seniority should be determined on the basis of the merit order assigned by the

Railway Service Commission or other recruiting authority.â€​

Later on sometime in the year 1990 Rule 303(a) was amended by inserting the following expression:

“Those who joined the subsequent course for any reasons whatsoever and those who passed the examination in the subsequent chance

will rank junior to those who had passed the examination in earlier courses.â€​

The aforesaid Rule stood further amended in 1993 which reads thus:

“In case however persons belonging to the same RRB panel are sent for initial training in batches due to administrative reasons and not

because of reasons attributable to the candidates, the inter se seniority will be regulated batchwise provided persons higher up in the panel

of RRB not sent for training in the appropriate batch (as per seniority) due to administrative reasons shall be clubbed along with the

candidates who took the training in the appropriate batch for the purpose of regularising the inter se seniority provided such persons pass

the examination at the end of the training in the first attempt.â€​

In view of our conclusion that the posts fell vacant prior to July 1989 and the process of selection was completed and the Recruitment Board

selected the candidates on 11-7-1989 the amendment that was introduced on 5-5-1990 and the further amendment of 1993 will have no application and

it is the unamended Rule 303(a), as it stood on 11-7-1989, that would govern the case of inter se seniority. The analysis of the provisions of para 303

indicates that where candidates are required to undergo some training after being selected through Railway Service Commission or any other

recruiting authority, their seniority is determined on the basis of their respective merit in the examination held at the end of the training period and

where candidates do not have to undergo any training, the seniority is determined on the basis of the merit assigned by the Railway Service

Commission or other recruiting authority. In the present case the candidates had to undergo training and in fact they had undergone training in batches,

as already stated. In that view of the matter their seniority had rightly been determined by the Railway authority on the basis of their respective merit

obtained in the examination held at the end of the training period. The Tribunal committed error by altering the said seniority on the basis of a rule

which was not in existence on the date the vacancy arose and, on the date, when the selection was completed.â€​

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. The impugned judgment, in the opinion of this court, is not erroneous; it does not call for

interference.

In view of the above discussion, the appeals are dismissed, without order on costs.