Seniority between direct recruits and promotees must follow rota-based cyclic order, not blanket en bloc preference.

The governing seniority regime for Assistant Consolidation Officer cadre was identified as the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991, which prevail over other service rules on seniority. Seniority is ordinarily linked to the date of substantive appointment, and where both direct recruits and promotees are appointed, the rules require a cyclic rota in accordance with the prescribed quota and recruitment year. The 1992 service rules were treated as relevant to explain the recruitment-year structure and the need to place both sources within that year. A blanket en bloc preference for promotees over direct recruits was rejected; seniority must be fixed by applying the rota or cyclic order.

---

---

Issues: Whether inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees to the cadre of Assistant Consolidation Officer had to be fixed by en bloc placement of promotees above direct recruits, or by applying the seniority rules through a rota or cyclic order linked to the recruitment year and the date of substantive appointment.

Analysis: The governing seniority framework was held to be the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991, which override other service rules on seniority. Under Rule 8, seniority ordinarily follows the date of substantive appointment, and where appointments are made by promotion and direct recruitment, the rule contemplates a cyclic order in accordance with the prescribed quota. The service rules of 1992 were treated as relevant for resolving ambiguity, especially because they define the recruitment year and require appointments from both sources within that year. The construction adopted was that Rule 8(3) cannot be read in isolation or as authorising a blanket en bloc preference to one source; instead, it must be harmoniously read with the recruitment-year scheme and the rota arrangement so that the rule remains workable and consistent with the quota structure.

Conclusion: The en bloc placement of all promotees above direct recruits was disapproved. Seniority had to be determined by applying the rota or cyclic order for direct recruits and promotees appointed in the same recruitment year, in accordance with the governing rules.

---