Officiating service counts for seniority when a promotee enters a substantive vacancy and continues uninterruptedly until regularisation.

Officiating service rendered after an ad hoc promotion against a substantive vacancy was counted for seniority because the appointment was made through the prescribed channel, the employee continued uninterruptedly until regularisation, and the later regularisation did not wipe out the earlier service. The governing seniority rules, as amended in 1967, required promotees and direct recruits appointed in the same calendar year to be ranked accordingly, with promotees placed senior. Review jurisdiction was also held to be narrow: it cannot be used to re-argue the matter, ignore the applicable rules, or rely on an inapposite earlier view. The review order was unsustainable and the original seniority position was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant's service from the date of his ad hoc promotion in 1972 could be counted for seniority against the direct recruits appointed in the same year, and (ii) whether the Tribunal could, in review, displace its earlier decision by ignoring the governing principles on seniority and by relying on an earlier High Court view.

Issue (i): whether the appellant's service from the date of his ad hoc promotion in 1972 could be counted for seniority against the direct recruits appointed in the same year.

Analysis: The relevant service rules distinguished between direct recruits and promotees and, after the 1967 amendment, specifically provided that where both modes of recruitment operated in the same calendar year, promotees would rank senior to direct recruits. The appellant had been selected in accordance with the rules against a permanent vacancy and was continued on ad hoc basis only pending concurrence of the Public Service Commission. His later regularisation in 1976 did not erase the earlier officiating service, because the initial appointment was not a stop-gap, rule-breaking arrangement but a regular promotion made in the prescribed channel. In such a situation, the period of uninterrupted officiation had to be counted for seniority.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to count the 1972 service for seniority and rank senior to the direct recruits appointed in that year.

Issue (ii): whether the Tribunal could, in review, displace its earlier decision by ignoring the governing principles on seniority and by relying on an earlier High Court view.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to correction of an apparent error, discovery of new matter, or other analogous sufficient reason, and cannot be used to re-argue the case or rewrite a concluded decision. The Tribunal's review order overlooked the 1967 amendment, misapplied the unamended rule, and treated a non-speaking dismissal of special leave as binding precedent. The earlier Constitution Bench principles governing counting of officiating service, especially where the initial appointment is according to rules and the employee continues uninterruptedly till regularisation, governed the controversy and ought to have been applied.

Conclusion: The review order was unsustainable and could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded on the seniority question, the review judgment was set aside, and the original decision restoring his seniority over the direct recruits was revived.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a promotee is appointed in accordance with the rules against a substantive vacancy and continues uninterruptedly until regularisation, the officiating period counts for seniority, and review cannot be used to replace that settled position by reappreciating the merits.

---