Inter se seniority of promotees from multiple feeding cadres in one selection is determined by substantive appointment dates in their feeding cadres, not promotion order dates, per Rule 7.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 1.6.2018, rendered by Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 19/DB/2016 and Claim Petition No. 30/DB/2017. By the said judgment, the challenge thrown by the petitioners to the seniority list dated 7.6.2017 was rejected and it was held that inter se seniority of petitioners and private respondents was rightly determined in terms of Rule 7 of UTTARAKHAND GOVERNMENT SERVANTS SENIORITY RULES , 2002.

2. Brief facts of the case, as culled out from the impugned judgment, are that petitioners and private respondents were appointed to Group II post in the year 1999; petitioners were appointed on the said post on 17.12.1999, while private respondent no. 5 was so appointed on 11.1.1999. It is also not in dispute that respondent no. 5 was appointed on the result of earlier selection, while petitioners participated in a selection process, which was initiated later. Petitioners were subsequently promoted to a Group I post vide order dated 26.10.2005, while respondent no. 5 was promoted to a Group I post on 2.2.2006. Petitioners have challenged the final seniority list of Group I officers, published on 7.6.2017, by contending that since they were promoted earlier in point of time compared to respondent no. 5, therefore, they are entitled to be placed above respondent no. 5 in the final seniority list.

3. Learned Tribunal considered the provisions of the recruitment rules applicable for the posts in question and also the UTTARAKHAND GOVERNMENT SERVANTS SENIORITY RULES , 2002 and held that in view of non obstante clause contained in Rule 3 of the Seniority Rules, they shall prevail over the recruitment rules for determining seniority. Learned Tribunal relied upon Rule 7 of UTTARAKHAND GOVERNMENT SERVANTS SENIORITY RULES , 2002, which is extracted below:

“7 . Seniority where appointment by promotion only from several feeding cadres – Where according to the service rules, appointment are to be made only by promotion but from more than one feeding cadres, the seniority inter se of persons appointed on the result of any one selection shall be determined according to the date of the order of their substantive appointment in their respective feeding cadres.

Explanation – Where the order of the substantive appointment in the feeding cadre specifies a particular back date with effect from which a person is substantively appointed, that date will be deemed to be the date of order of substantive appointment and, in other cases it will meant the date of issuance of the order.

Provided that where the pay scales of the feeding cadres are different, the persons promoted from the feeding cadre having higher pay scale shall be senior to the persons promoted from the feeding cadre having lower pay scale.

Provided further that the persons appointed on the result of a subsequent selection shall be junior to the persons appointed on the result of a previous selection.”

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that learned Tribunal erred in law in misinterpreting Rule 7 , while Rule 7 provides that anyone who is promoted earlier in point of time shall be treated as senior on the promotional post, even though two or more persons belonging to different feeding cadres are promoted pursuant to the same selection.

5. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, rendered by the Tribunal. Rule 7 of the Seniority Rules applies when promotion is the only mode of appointment to a post, which is to be filled from more than one feeding cadre. Admittedly, in the feeding cadre, respondent no. 5 was senior as he was appointed p