TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether seniority in each cadre was required to be fixed separately under the governing service rules and whether a reserved-category promotee acquired seniority from the date of regular promotion in that cadre; (ii) whether the principles in earlier reservation-in-promotion decisions could be used to reopen seniority already settled under the applicable cadre-wise rules; (iii) whether the writ challenge to long-past promotions was barred by delay and laches.
Issue (i): Whether seniority in each cadre was required to be fixed separately under the governing service rules and whether a reserved-category promotee acquired seniority from the date of regular promotion in that cadre.
Analysis: The service rules provided that seniority was to be determined by length of continuous service and, where different cadres or categories existed, separately for each cadre. Promotion to the higher cadre was followed by probation and, on satisfactory completion, the promotee became a member of that cadre. Continuous officiation in the promoted cadre therefore counted for seniority from the date of appointment to that cadre, and the employee ceased to remain part of the feeder cadre for seniority purposes.
Conclusion: Seniority had to be determined cadre-wise, and the reserved-category promotees retained seniority in the higher cadre from their respective dates of regular promotion.
Issue (ii): Whether the principles in earlier reservation-in-promotion decisions could be used to reopen seniority already settled under the applicable cadre-wise rules.
Analysis: The earlier decisions on reservation and seniority were held to be fact-specific and directed to different legal settings, particularly where no rule like the present Rule 11 governed cadre-wise seniority. Those decisions did not create a general rule permitting redetermination of seniority in every promoted cadre by reference back to the feeder cadre. Administrative instructions issued later could not override the statutory seniority rules.
Conclusion: The earlier reservation-in-promotion decisions could not be applied to unsettle seniority fixed under the applicable rules.
Issue (iii): Whether the writ challenge to long-past promotions was barred by delay and laches.
Analysis: The challenge was brought after the promotions had been made long earlier and after the promotees had moved further up the service ladder. Discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction is ordinarily refused where a party sleeps over its rights for an extended period and seeks to reopen settled service matters at a belated stage.
Conclusion: The challenge was barred by delay and laches.
Final Conclusion: The statutory service rules governed seniority cadre-wise, the reserved-category promotees could not be displaced from seniority already earned in the higher cadres, and the belated challenge was not fit for interference.
Ratio Decidendi: Where service rules prescribe cadre-wise seniority by length of continuous service, a promotee acquires seniority in the promoted cadre from the date of regular appointment and completion of probation, and earlier general-cadre seniority cannot be invoked to reopen that settled position.
TaxTMI 
