Statutory seniority rules prevail over executive instructions, and unequal cadre treatment defeated the claim to Army-service seniority benefit.

Statutory seniority rules fixing seniority by date of appointment controlled the cadre, and executive orders could not substitute a different basis by treating Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Regular Commissioned Officers as earlier entrants; such a change required amendment of the rules under the constitutional rule-making power. The orders were therefore invalid and created no enforceable seniority right. The discrimination claim also failed because officers in medical and engineering services were not similarly situated: they remained in the same field in Army and civilian service and their rules had been amended, whereas the petitioners entered a non-technical service governed by unamended rules. Parity was thus unavailable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government orders issued for fixing seniority of Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Regular Commissioned Officers in non-technical posts could validly alter the seniority scheme prescribed by the statutory service rules. (ii) Whether denial of the Army-service based seniority benefit to officers appointed in the Commercial Tax Service amounted to arbitrary discrimination when similar benefit had been given in medical and engineering services.

Issue (i): Whether the Government orders issued for fixing seniority of Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Regular Commissioned Officers in non-technical posts could validly alter the seniority scheme prescribed by the statutory service rules.

Analysis: The governing service rules contained an express seniority provision fixing seniority by the date of appointment. The later Government orders adopted a different basis by treating the officers as belonging to an earlier year linked to their first possible attempt after joining military service. That approach was inconsistent with the statutory rules and could be brought into force only by amending the rules under the constitutional rule-making power, not by administrative instructions.

Conclusion: The Government orders were invalid insofar as they sought to modify statutory seniority rules by executive instructions, and no enforceable right accrued to the petitioners on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of the Army-service based seniority benefit to officers appointed in the Commercial Tax Service amounted to arbitrary discrimination when similar benefit had been given in medical and engineering services.

Analysis: Officers in medical and engineering services had continued in the same field in which they had served in the Army, and the relevant service rules for those cadres had been suitably amended. The petitioners, by contrast, entered a non-technical service with different duties and no corresponding amendment to the governing rules. The two groups were therefore not similarly situated for the purpose of seniority counting.

Conclusion: The claim of discriminatory treatment failed, as the petitioners were not entitled to parity with officers in medical and engineering services.

Final Conclusion: The statutory seniority rule remained controlling, the executive orders could not displace it, and the petitioners were not entitled to the claimed seniority benefit or constitutional relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Executive instructions cannot alter or override an express seniority rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and a claim of equality fails where the compared cadres are not similarly situated for the relevant service benefit.

---