Branch-wise seniority for promotions is valid under recruitment rules, and long-standing acceptance of this system by appellants precludes their challenge.

JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. These appeals arise out of a common judgement rendered by the learned Single Judge on 26.11.2019, by which, the petitions filed by the appellants for a prayer that the promotions from the cadre of Junior Lecturer to the cadre of Senior Lecturer on the basis of branches of the cadre be quashed and set aside and directions be issued to operate and maintain a common seniority list of Junior Lecturers irrespective of the branches in which they were working for the purposes of promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer. The learned Single Judge by the judgement, dismissed the petitions holding that the recruitment rules in question for the purposes of promotion stipulated that the appointment to the post was to be made by promotion on the basis of educational qualifications and experience which included the qualifications of having worked in the seven branches that was set out in the rules.

1.1 The learned Single Judge held that minimum educational qualification as well as experience prescribed for each of the Junior Lecturers working in their branches was necessary for being eligible for promotion and the seniority assigned to the lecturers in their respective branches should therefore be considered as appropriate.

2. Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned advocate appearing for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 488 of 2020, made the following submissions:

2.1 That the Recruitment Rules for the post of Lecturers in the Gujarat Education Services (District Institute of Education & Training) Recruitment Rules, 1990, provided for appointment by direct selection. Referring to the appointment orders and the posting orders of the appellants, Mr.Pujara, learned Counsel, would submit that in the appointment and the posting orders, there was no mention of any branch to which the appellants were to be appointed or posted, and therefore, the interpretation by the respondents that the seniority and experience of working in a branch is the relevant criteria is misconceived.

2.2 Inviting our attention to the Recruitment Rules, namely, the Rules for Appointment to the Post of Senior Lecturer, Mr.Pujara, learned Counsel, would submit that appointment to the post of Senior Lecturers was either by direct selection or by promotion. As per the criteria for promotion, the person was eligible for such promotion if the person was having proved merit and efficiency from amongst the persons who had worked for not less than seven years in the cadre of Lecturer Class-III. Mr.Pujara, would therefore submit that there was no criteria for considering work experience in a particular branch for the purposes of promotion.

2.3 Inviting our attention to the impugned communication dated 09.04.2010, Mr.Pujara, learned counsel, would submit that in the respective branches that was shown in the impugned communication, namely, PSTE Branch, W.E Branch, CMDI Branch and IFCI Branch etc., incumbents much junior to the appellants i.e. whose dates of initial appointments were either of 1995 i.e. similar to the appellant or post 1995 i.e. of the year 1997-98, were considered for promotion. Mr.Pujara, learned counsel, would submit that, therefore, there was no reason why persons junior to the appellant be considered for promotion.

2.4 Mr.Pujara, learned Counsel, therefore also invited our attention to the representations made by the appellants to support his submission that the appellant concerned, after being appointed on 05.10.1995 as a Junior Lecturer, had worked in various branches, and therefore, the branch-wise seniority orders could not have been the criteria for assigning seniority and inturn be considered for promotion. He would submit that, therefore, there was no question on any branch-wise seniority. Mr.Pujara, learned Counsel, would submit that, before the learned Single Judge, the appella