Retrospective equivalence of posts is valid, but prior officiation counts for seniority only with specific statutory approval.

Under the seniority rules, a State Government may retrospectively declare a post equivalent to a senior post where the rules contemplate equivalence by declaration, and that power supports recognition of past comparable service for seniority purposes. However, seniority benefit for officiation before inclusion in the Select List depends on a separate statutory safeguard: specific approval of that period by the Central Government in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. Earlier correspondence or approval of the Select List alone does not satisfy that distinct requirement, so the disputed officiation period cannot be counted unless such approval is established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government could validly make a retrospective declaration that a post was equivalent to a senior post for the purpose of seniority under the seniority rules; (ii) whether the promotees could claim the benefit of officiation prior to inclusion of their names in the Select List without specific approval of that period by the Central Government in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government could validly make a retrospective declaration that a post was equivalent to a senior post for the purpose of seniority under the seniority rules.

Analysis: The relevant definition of senior post contemplated a post declared equivalent thereto by the State Government. The scheme of the seniority rules, read with the cadre and recruitment framework, showed that a declaration of equivalence was intended to identify posts already treated as comparable in rank and responsibility. A retrospective declaration was not inconsistent with the rules because seniority for promotees was to reflect the period of actual continuous officiation, subject to the statutory safeguards. The approval requirement operated as the check against misuse and made the construction workable. The later amendment of the definition also indicated that the earlier scheme had accommodated such declarations.

Conclusion: The State Government had power to make a retrospective declaration that a post was equivalent to a senior post.

Issue (ii): Whether the promotees could claim the benefit of officiation prior to inclusion of their names in the Select List without specific approval of that period by the Central Government in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission.

Analysis: Rule 3(3)(b) required a specific approval of the period of officiation prior to inclusion in the Select List. On the materials before the Court, no such approval could be established merely from the earlier correspondence and the approval of the Select List itself. The rule treated approval of the period of officiation as a distinct statutory requirement, and the legal fiction in favour of the promotee arose only when that approval was obtained.

Conclusion: The promotees were not entitled to count the disputed earlier officiation period for seniority unless the requisite specific approval was obtained.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the view that retrospective equivalence was impermissible failed, but the seniority position could not be sustained on the basis assumed by the High Court. The matter was disposed of by upholding the retrospective declaration power while correcting the seniority consequence ordered below.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the seniority rules, a State Government may retrospectively declare a post equivalent to a senior post, but seniority benefit for prior officiation depends upon the separate statutory approval of that period by the Central Government in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission.

---