Seniority follows rule-based appointments, not ad hoc promotions; challenge to the seniority list was maintainable and timely.

Appointments made according to the Recruitment Rules count for seniority from the date of such appointment, while ad hoc or stop-gap appointments made dehors the rules do not confer seniority. On that principle, direct recruits were entitled to rank above ad hoc promotees appointed without compliance with the prescribed procedure and without Public Service Commission approval. A challenge to the basis of a seniority list was not defeated by non-joinder of every affected promotee, because the State was the necessary party and some promotees had been impleaded. A challenge filed soon after issuance of the final seniority list was not barred by delay and laches; the seniority list was therefore to be redrawn in accordance with the rules.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether direct recruits appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules were entitled to seniority over ad hoc promotees appointed dehors the rules. (ii) Whether non-joinder of all promotees was fatal to the challenge to the seniority list. (iii) Whether the claim was barred by delay and laches.

Issue (i): Whether direct recruits appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules were entitled to seniority over ad hoc promotees appointed dehors the rules.

Analysis: Seniority had to be determined on the basis of the governing principle that an incumbent appointed according to rules counts seniority from the date of such appointment, while an ad hoc or stop-gap appointment not made according to rules cannot be counted for seniority. The promotees had been appointed on an ad hoc basis without compliance with the prescribed promotional procedure and without approval of the Public Service Commission. The authoritative rule on inter se seniority therefore required the direct recruits to rank senior to the ad hoc promotees.

Conclusion: The direct recruits were entitled to seniority over the ad hoc promotees, and the contrary view of the Tribunal was in law.

Issue (ii): Whether non-joinder of all promotees was fatal to the challenge to the seniority list.

Analysis: The challenge was directed to the principle adopted by the State in fixing seniority, not to any individual promotee's appointment as such. In that situation, the State was the necessary party, while the affected promotees were at the highest proper parties. Some promotees had in any event been impleaded, and the proceedings could not fail merely because every affected promotee was not before the Court.

Conclusion: Non-joinder of all promotees was not fatal to the appellants' case.

Issue (iii): Whether the claim was barred by delay and laches.

Analysis: The final gradation list was issued only in December 1988 and the appellants approached the Tribunal in 1989. The grievance was against the final seniority determination, not against the initial ad hoc promotions themselves, so the challenge was brought promptly after the final list.

Conclusion: The claim was not barred by delay and laches.

Final Conclusion: The seniority list was set aside and the State was required to redraw seniority in accordance with the rule that appointments made according to the recruitment rules prevail over ad hoc appointments made dehors the rules.

Ratio Decidendi: For seniority purposes, only an appointment made according to the governing rules counts from its date; an ad hoc or stop-gap appointment made outside the rules cannot be treated as a source of seniority, and a challenge to the basis of a seniority list does not fail for want of joinder of every affected employee where the State is the necessary party.

---