Regular appointment and continuous officiation govern seniority for promotee Deputy Collectors; reopening settled vacancy counts was rejected.

Appointments made regularly to substantive vacancies were treated as regular appointments for seniority purposes, including cases where promotee Deputy Collectors were placed in temporary additional posts or ex-cadre posts forming part of the cadre. Seniority followed continuous officiation under the governing quota arrangement, and a restrictive reading that would exclude such appointments was rejected. The matter was also treated as concluded by the earlier binding decision, so the same challenge could not be reopened. A further claim to additional vacancies beyond the accepted vacancy count was unsupported on the record and was not remitted for fresh inquiry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether promotee Deputy Collectors appointed during the relevant period to substantive vacancies, including temporary or ex-cadre posts treated as part of the regular cadre, were "regularly appointed" and entitled to seniority on the basis of continuous officiation under the earlier ruling governing the quota arrangement. (ii) Whether the promotees could reopen the seniority exercise on the basis that additional vacancies existed beyond the sixty-one vacancies accepted by the State.

Issue (i): Whether promotee Deputy Collectors appointed during the relevant period to substantive vacancies, including temporary or ex-cadre posts treated as part of the regular cadre, were "regularly appointed" and entitled to seniority on the basis of continuous officiation under the earlier ruling governing the quota arrangement.

Analysis: The governing earlier decision had already held that appointments made during the relevant period were not ad hoc and had been made regularly in accordance with the rules to fill substantive vacancies. The expression "promoters regularly appointed" had to be understood in that sense and not narrowed so as to exclude appointments to temporary additional posts that formed an integral part of the regular cadre or appointments followed by deputation to ex-cadre posts. The High Court's contrary reading effectively re-opened and altered the earlier ruling. The issue was also barred by res judicata, since the same challenge had already been negatived in the earlier proceedings. The Court further relied on the accepted principles that a temporary post may be held in a substantive capacity and that seniority ordinarily follows continuous officiation where the appointments are regular.

Conclusion: The promotees appointed during the relevant period to substantive vacancies, including those placed in temporary additional posts or ex-cadre posts, were regularly appointed and were entitled to the benefit of continuous officiation. The High Court's restrictive interpretation was and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the promotees could reopen the seniority exercise on the basis that additional vacancies existed beyond the sixty-one vacancies accepted by the State.

Analysis: The Court found no reliable basis for the claim of nineteen additional vacancies. The record supported the State's consistent position that there were only sixty-one vacancies, and after the long pendency of the litigation no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter for a fresh factual inquiry or a fresh seniority list.

Conclusion: The claim to additional vacancies was rejected, and the dismissal of the promotees' challenge was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by restoring the seniority position in favour of the promotees on the principal legal issue, while rejecting the attempt to enlarge the vacancy count beyond the accepted figure.

Ratio Decidendi: Where appointments are made regularly in accordance with the governing rules to fill substantive vacancies, seniority follows continuous officiation, and such appointments cannot be retrospectively excluded by narrowing the meaning of regular appointment or by reopening a matter already concluded by an earlier binding decision.

---