Fortuitous promotion and mandatory Commission consultation govern seniority fixation under the quota rules.

Service rendered under a fortuitous, temporary or trial promotion could not be counted for seniority unless the appointment was regularised in accordance with the governing recruitment rules, so seniority was to run only from the date of lawful regular appointment. Rule 4A was treated as requiring consultation with the Public Service Commission as a mandatory safeguard where relaxation of the quota rule was sought, and the rule did not validate the impugned promotions on the facts stated. The challenge to the seniority lists was not barred by laches because the affected employees objected once their positions were altered. The seniority lists were therefore liable to be quashed and remade on the basis of regular appointment dates.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether promotions made in breach of the quota rule and described as fortuitous, until further orders or on trial basis, could be counted for seniority; (ii) whether rule 4A permitted relaxation of the quota only on a valid decision taken in consultation with the Public Service Commission; (iii) whether the challenge to the seniority lists was barred by laches.

Issue (i): whether promotions made in breach of the quota rule and described as fortuitous, until further orders or on trial basis, could be counted for seniority

Analysis: The seniority rules excluded service rendered as a result of a fortuitous appointment from computation of length of service and deemed regular appointment only from the date of lawful regular appointment. The promotion orders of the departmental promotees themselves showed that their appointments were temporary, fortuitous, until further orders or on trial basis. No order of regularisation in accordance with the recruitment rules was shown.

Conclusion: The fortuitous service could not be counted for seniority, and seniority had to be fixed only from the date of regular appointment.

Issue (ii): whether rule 4A permitted relaxation of the quota only on a valid decision taken in consultation with the Public Service Commission

Analysis: Rule 4A opened with a non-obstante clause but still required the State Government, if service exigencies so required, to act in consultation with the Public Service Commission wherever necessary. The word "may" was read as mandatory in order to preserve the consultation safeguard and prevent arbitrary bypassing of the quota structure. The record did not show a valid regularisation of the impugned promotions in the manner required by the rule.

Conclusion: Rule 4A did not validate the impugned promotions or the seniority lists on the facts found, and consultation was mandatory.

Issue (iii): whether the challenge to the seniority lists was barred by laches

Analysis: The appellants were not in the cadre when the earliest seniority list was prepared, and they did object to the later lists once their positions were affected. Their grievance was pursued before the department and then before the Tribunal when the adverse position persisted.

Conclusion: The challenge was not barred by laches.

Final Conclusion: The seniority lists were liable to be quashed and a fresh list was required to be prepared by ignoring fortuitous service and by fixing inter se seniority according to the date of regular appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: Service rendered under a fortuitous appointment cannot be counted for seniority unless the appointment is regularised strictly in accordance with the governing rules, and a provision requiring consultation with the Commission must be treated as mandatory where that safeguard is integral to the relaxation power.

---