Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
In cases involving urgent temporary appointments or appointments outside regular selection procedures, seniority is often recognized from the date of regular appointment or from the date of joining, but not necessarily from the date of initial appointment if it was temporary or non-regular ["Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer VS Dr. Narendra Kumar Mangal : Dr. Ravindra Singh : Dr. Bhanwar Singh : State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"].
Analysis and Conclusion
In the competitive world of government jobs in Rajasthan, securing a position through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) is a significant achievement. However, disputes often arise over seniority, especially when candidates are selected via a common selection process but appointed on different dates. This can impact promotions, transfers, and other service benefits. If you've ever wondered, persons have been selected through one common selection, however, appointed on different dates by RPSC, then in that case how the seniority would be determined?, this post breaks it down based on established legal principles and court judgments.
Understanding seniority rules is crucial for aspirants and serving employees alike. We'll explore the general rule, exceptions for irregular appointments, and insights from key cases, all while emphasizing that this is general information—not personalized legal advice. Always consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
Generally, when persons are selected through the same process but appointed on different dates, seniority is determined based on the date of appointment, not the merit order or selection date alone—provided the appointments are regular and follow the rules. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer VS Dr. Narendra Kumar Mangal - 2001 0 Supreme(Raj) 507 This principle ensures fairness, as the actual joining and substantive posting mark the start of service tenure.
For instance, the court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer VS Dr. Narendra Kumar Mangal - 2001 0 Supreme(Raj) 507 emphasized: appointment to the Selection Scale of an officer in the Senior Scale in the Service constitutes promotion and seniority in the Selection Scale has to be fixed in accordance with Rule 33 of the Rules on the basis of the date of selection and appointment. Here, the date of appointment following proper selection is pivotal.
Similarly, R. K. MOBISANA SINGH VS KH. TEMBA SINGH - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 1596 clarifies: the date of order under which the persons are appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer is the crucial date for determining seniority under the Rule irrespective of the fact when the selection process really started. This distinguishes selection (recommendation/merit list) from appointment (actual posting).
Not all appointments count equally. Irregular appointments—those made in excess of quota, against non-existing posts, or without following rules—do not confer seniority from the appointment date. Instead, seniority is fixed from the date of substantive, regular appointment. Pratap Singh Soni VS State of Rajasthan - 1999 0 Supreme(Raj) 1280Sanjay K. Sinha-II VS State Of Bihar - 2004 5 Supreme 312
In Pratap Singh Soni VS State of Rajasthan - 1999 0 Supreme(Raj) 1280, the court held: the seniority of the respondents/promotees made between June and November, 1987 to the posts of ACFs cannot be termed as substantive appointments to the service and therefore, they cannot confer any benefit of seniority on the respondents over and above the appellants who were directly appointed.
Likewise, Sanjay K. Sinha-II VS State Of Bihar - 2004 5 Supreme 312 observed: appointments of the respondents/promotees between June and November, 1987 as ACFs were against non-existing posts, and such do not confer any benefit of seniority.
Jagdish Ch. Patnaik: Nalinikanta Mohapatra VS State Of Orissa - 1998 3 Supreme 572 reinforces: appointments made contrary to the rules are merely fortuitous and do not confer benefit of seniority.
Rajasthan courts have consistently upheld these principles across services. In Ghanshyam Ameta VS State of Rajasthan - 2003 Supreme(Raj) 621, involving RPSC recommendations for Lecturer posts, appointments were issued on different dates despite a common merit list (1-11, then 12th due to a vacancy). The court distinguished: `Recruitment connote enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for appointment whereas appointment is actual act of posting to a particular post – Recruitment cannot be tantamounted to an appointment – For the purpose of determination of seniority actual date of appointment should be taken into consideration. This aligns with RPSC contexts.
Under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, Sudharshan Mundra S/o Suresh Kumar Mundra vs Goverdhan Kumar S/o Masaru Ram - 2025 Supreme(Raj) 1601 mandated seniority by date of confirmation per Rule 285, not merit alone: Seniority for promotions must be determined based on the date of confirmation as per Rule 285 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, not solely on merit.
In cooperative services, M. L. Jain and 7 others VS State of Rajasthan - 1991 Supreme(Raj) 804 protected inter se seniority from common selection: one who has been selected in the earlier selection will rank senior to one who is appointed as a result of subsequent selection and inter se seniority of the persons selected under the same selection shall not be changed.
Sushil Pandey VS State of U. P. Thr. Principal Secretary (Home) - 2023 Supreme(SC) 37 stressed rule compliance: no appointee can claim seniority before their appointment date, directing recasting based on cadre entry.
For direct recruits vs. promotees, L. P. Badoni VS State of Uttarakhand - 2017 Supreme(UK) 408 and MANOHAR LAL JAT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2020 Supreme(SC) 677 highlight cyclic orders and merit in combined lists, but appointment dates remain key for same-source recruits.
In DR.GOVIND NARAIN PUROHIT vs STATE and ORS, RPSC selections underscored: Seniority of persons appointed to the post encadred in the service shall be determined as a result of subsequent selection.
In summary, for RPSC selections, seniority typically follows the date of regular appointment, not selection, among common selectees. Irregularities reset the clock to substantive dates, preventing undue advantages. Courts prioritize rules like those in Rajasthan service regulations, ensuring equity.
Key Takeaways:- Prioritize date of appointment for regular cases. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer VS Dr. Narendra Kumar Mangal - 2001 0 Supreme(Raj) 507- Scrutinize for irregularities to avoid pitfalls. Pratap Singh Soni VS State of Rajasthan - 1999 0 Supreme(Raj) 1280- Merit guides inter se, but posting dates decide rank.- Reference rules (e.g., Rule 33, 285) and precedents for disputes.
This overview draws from judgments like Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer VS Dr. Narendra Kumar Mangal - 2001 0 Supreme(Raj) 507, Pratap Singh Soni VS State of Rajasthan - 1999 0 Supreme(Raj) 1280, Sanjay K. Sinha-II VS State Of Bihar - 2004 5 Supreme 312, and others. For tailored advice, engage a legal expert familiar with Rajasthan service law. Stay informed, and best wishes in your RPSC journey!
Disclaimer: This post provides general insights based on public judgments and is not legal advice. Laws evolve; verify with current rules.
#RPSCSeniority, #ServiceRules, #RajasthanLaw
Rule 29(3)(A) only clarifies the position as to how the seniority of the candidates selected through the same selection by the RPSC has to be determined. Even Rule 29(3) also refers to the determination of seniority of the candidates selected in one and the same selection. ... There is no other clarification as to how the seniority of persons was to be determined when the selecti....
Admittedly, the doctors (petitioners herein) had not been appointed after selection by the RPSC and as per their appointment orders they were appointed on urgent temporary basis for a fixed term of one year or till the regularly selected candidates were made available whichever was earlier. ... Since they did not face RPSC for regular selection, nor the Rules 1962 does provide for regularisation in case of their having been #HL_STAR....
Admittedly, the doctors (petitioners herein) had not been appointed after selection by the RPSC and as per their appointment orders they were appointed on urgent temporary basis for a fixed terms of one year or till the regularly selected candidates were made available whichever was earlier. ... Since they did not face RPSC for regular selection, nor the Rules 1962 does provide for regularisation in case of their having been #HL_STA....
revision, shall rank senior to the persons who are selected and appointed as a result of subsequent selection. ... Seniority of persons appointed to the post encadred in the service shall be determined from the date of appointment on the post after regular selection in accordance with the provisos of these rules. ... The order Annex.7 contained a condition to the effect that the candidates would have to appear befo....
and therefore, 11 persons on the recommendations of the RPSC were given appointments and since out of 11 persons, one person Rameshwarlal did not join, therefore, RPSC recommended the name of the petitioner for being appointed as Lecturer in Physics being 12th person of merit list, but since the main ... ... According to the petitioner, in respect of the candidates whose names were shown in the merit list from serial nos. 1 to 11, appointment orders were issued on different#....
However One - The mutual seniority of the persons appointed in the service as direct recruitment in the service, would be the same as determined at the time of selection. ... 22 - Seniority - The seniority of the post on any category of post in the service, would be the same which has been determined since the date of original appointment order and if two or more pers....
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2/UJVNL and respondent no.7 would submit that that even if Regulation 8 is considered, Regulation 8(2-a) provides that the inter-se seniority of persons appointed by direct recruitment shall be determined by merit as decided by the selection committee; that ... The sole issue before this Hon’ble Court is whether appointment prior in time by one selection confers seniority, or whether mer....
The department in the said letter further stated that, a few Zila Parishads while providing an erroneous interpretation of Rule 285 have determined the seniority of persons, selected through LDC recruitment 2013, however, appointed on different dates as per the list prepared by DEC. ... Firstly, the determination of seniority of persons, appointed by the orders of different #HL_S....
have to appear before the RPSC for regular selection. ... Seniority of persons appointed to the post encadred in the service shall be determined as a result of subsequent selection. ... RPSC. ... However, the present impugned common judgment had already been p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding:0;
The scheme of the aforesaid rule 31 appears to be that one who has been selected in the earlier selection will rank senior to one who is appointed as a result of subsequent selection and inter se seniority of the persons selected under the same selection shall not be changed. ... Under clause (ii) of the proviso to rule 31 the persons selected and appointed as a....
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. This interpretation is, in this court’s opinion, salutary. 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.
Provided that, a candidate recruited directly may lose his seniority if he fails to join without valid reasons when vacancy is offered to him. Provided that if the appointment order specifies a particular back date with effect from which a person is substantively appointed, that date, will be deemed to be the date if order of substantive appointment and, in other cases, it will mean the date of issue of the order: (2) The seniority interse of persons appointed directly on the result of any one selection, shall be the same as determined by the commission or, as the case may be, by S....
Provided further that if after a selection, more than one appointment orders are issued, the seniority shall be such as, is mentioned in the combined appointment order issued under sub-rule (2) of rule 20. (2) The Seniority inter se of persons appointed directly on the result of any selection shall be the same as determined by the Selection Committee: Provided that a candidate recruited directly may lose his seniority if he fails to join the post offered, without valid reasons and his appointment will also be cancelled. (3) The Seniority inter se of persons appointed by pro....
Provided that a candidate required directly may lose his seniority if he fails to join without valid reasons when vacancy is offered to him. (2) The seniority inter se of persons appointed directly on the result of any one selection, shall be the same as determined by the Commission or the Selection Committee, as the case may be: The decision of the Appointing Authority as to the validity of reasons shall be final. Provided that if more than one order or appointment are issued in respect of any one selection, the seniority shall be as mentioned in the combined order of appo....
Provided also that if after a selection more than one appointment orders are issued in relation to a selection, the seniority shall be such as is mentioned in the combined appointment order issued under Rule 19 (3). (2) The Seniority inter se of persons appointed directly on the result of any one selection shall be the same as determined by the Selection Committee: (3) The Seniority inter se of persons appointed by promotion shall be the same as it was in the cadre from which they were promoted. Provided that a candidate recruited directly may lose his seniority if he fails....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
