Cadre seniority follows regular appointment, not temporary service; direct recruits were kept above stopgap appointees.

Temporary posts of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer were not treated as cadre posts for the relevant period, because stopgap appointments under Rule 10(a)(i) did not confer cadre status and the later Government Order making such posts permanent operated prospectively. Seniority followed appointment to the service or cadre post under the applicable rules, not length of service in a temporary post, so persons appointed outside the cadre could not rank above regularly recruited direct recruits. The impugned seniority list, having been framed in line with the Supreme Court's directions and earlier writ adjudication, was upheld and the writ petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether temporary posts of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer formed part of the cadre for the purpose of inter se seniority. (ii) Whether persons appointed against temporary posts could claim seniority over direct recruits and invalidate the impugned seniority list.

Issue (i): Whether temporary posts of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer formed part of the cadre for the purpose of inter se seniority.

Analysis: The earlier Supreme Court decision, read with the relevant service rules, proceeded on the footing that seniority could be fixed only among persons appointed to cadre posts. Temporary appointments made under Rule 10(a)(i) were stopgap arrangements and did not by themselves confer a right to be treated as holders of cadre posts. The record did not establish that the temporary posts were part of the cadre during the relevant period, and the later Government Order making temporary posts permanent operated prospectively.

Conclusion: Temporary posts were not treated as cadre posts for the relevant period, and the petitioners could not claim cadre status on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether persons appointed against temporary posts could claim seniority over direct recruits and invalidate the impugned seniority list.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that seniority follows appointment to the service or cadre post in accordance with the rules, not mere length of service in a temporary or stopgap post. Persons appointed outside the cadre, or otherwise than in accordance with the recruitment rules, could not rank above regularly appointed direct recruits. The impugned list was framed in conformity with the Supreme Court's directions and the earlier writ adjudication, and no legal basis was shown to disturb that determination.

Conclusion: The petitioners had no enforceable right to seniority over direct recruits, and the impugned seniority list was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed on the governing seniority principle and were dismissed, with the seniority list left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Seniority in a service can be claimed only by those appointed to a cadre post in accordance with the applicable rules, and temporary or stopgap appointments made de hors the rules do not confer a right to rank above regularly recruited candidates.

---