Cadre seniority for District Judges runs from appointment to work in the cadre post, not probationary posting.

Under the Maharashtra Judicial Service rules, seniority in the District Judge cadre depends on the date a judge is appointed to work in that cadre, not the earlier date of probationary posting as Additional District Judge. The Court read the seniority and probation provisions conjointly and held that the phrase "to work as" must bear the same meaning in both rules. Accordingly, the probation period spent in the intermediary post could not be counted toward District Judge cadre seniority. The administrative seniority determination treating direct recruits as senior from their initial probationary appointment was inconsistent with the rules and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seniority of directly nominated District Judges and promotee District Judges in the cadre of District Judges is to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment as Additional District Judge or from the date on which they are appointed to work as District Judge.

Analysis: The service rules governing the Maharashtra Judicial Service distinguished between appointment by promotion and appointment by nomination from the Bar. The seniority clause had to be read with the provision requiring a selected Bar appointee to undergo probation by first working as an Additional District Judge for two years. On a conjoint reading, the expression "to work as" in the seniority rule and in the probation rule had to carry the same meaning. The period spent working as Additional District Judge on probation could not be counted as service in the cadre of District Judge for seniority purposes. The administrative view that treated the direct recruit's seniority from the date of initial appointment as Additional District Judge was inconsistent with the rules.

Conclusion: The seniority of a promotee District Judge is to be reckoned from the date of promotion when appointed to work as District Judge, and the seniority of a direct recruit is to be reckoned only from the date of appointment to work as District Judge after completion of probation, not from the initial appointment to work as Additional District Judge.

Final Conclusion: The impugned administrative seniority determination was set aside and the writ petition was allowed, with seniority to be fixed in accordance with the rule-based commencement of service in the District Judge cadre.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a recruitment rule requires a direct recruit to first work on probation in an intermediary post before being appointed to the cadre post, seniority in the cadre starts only from the date of appointment to work in the cadre post, and the probationary period in the intermediary post cannot be counted for cadre seniority.

---