Seniority of direct recruits follows substantive appointment date or select panel merit, while compassionate appointment was sustained.

Compassionate appointment to a School Inspector post was described as valid where made under the applicable scheme and enabling powers in a hardship setting, and the appointment was sustained. On seniority, the document states that the issue had to be decided independently because it had not been finally determined earlier. It applies the principle that seniority among direct recruits follows the date of first substantive appointment against a clear vacancy, or, where candidates are appointed on the same recruitment basis without joining delay, their order in the select panel. The impugned seniority list was held unsustainable to the extent it placed an earlier appointee below later appointees, and seniority was to be corrected with consequential benefits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant's appointment on compassionate grounds to the post of School Inspector (General) was valid and could be sustained; (ii) whether the applicant and the other applicants were entitled to seniority with reference to their date of appointment or their position in the select panel, and whether the impugned seniority list required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant's appointment on compassionate grounds to the post of School Inspector (General) was valid and could be sustained.

Analysis: Compassionate appointment under the applicable scheme was confined to Group C or Group D posts in the direct recruitment quota, with relaxation from the ordinary recruitment procedure. The appointment was made in the factual setting of distress and destitution and under the enabling power available to the Corporation, and the earlier challenge to the appointment had already resulted in no interference with the appointment itself.

Conclusion: The appointment was held to be valid and was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant and the other applicants were entitled to seniority with reference to their date of appointment or their position in the select panel, and whether the impugned seniority list required interference.

Analysis: The earlier order did not adjudicate the seniority question finally, so the issue had to be decided independently. Seniority was governed by the principle that a direct recruit's seniority follows the date of first substantive appointment against a clear vacancy, while persons selected earlier in the selection process rank ahead of those selected later. Where candidates were appointed on the same recruitment basis without attributable delay in joining, seniority had to follow their place in the select panel. Applying these principles, the applicant who joined earlier was entitled to seniority above those appointed later, and the other applicants were entitled to seniority in accordance with their merit position in the select panel.

Conclusion: The impugned seniority list was not sustainable to the extent it placed the applicant below later appointees, and the applicants were entitled to seniority and consequential benefits as directed.

Final Conclusion: The seniority positions were directed to be corrected in accordance with the applicable seniority principles, while the applicant's appointment continued to stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Seniority between direct recruits is determined by the date of first substantive appointment or, where applicable, the order of merit in the select panel, and an earlier valid appointment cannot be displaced by later appointees merely because it was made under a compassionate appointment or relaxed procedure.

---