Seniority under recruitment rules turns on statutory quotas, vacancies and regular appointment, not mechanical quota-rota application.

Under the Customs Appraisers' Service, Class II Recruitment Rules, 1961, seniority was linked to the statutory recruitment structure rather than a rigid application of continuous officiation or the quota-rota principle. The Rules distinguished cadre strength from vacancies, and the Board could regulate recruitment by source, vacancies and service exigencies, subject to the minimum that direct recruitment comprise at least 50% of the cadre. In the absence of a fixed quota for promotees, the quota-rota principle could not be mechanically applied against them, and ad hoc appointees could not claim seniority over regular direct recruits. The seniority list prepared by the authorities was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under the Customs Appraisers' Service, Class II Recruitment Rules, 1961, seniority of appraisers had to be determined strictly on the basis of continuous officiation and the quota-rota principle, or whether the Board could regulate recruitment and seniority with reference to vacancies and service exigencies.

Analysis: The Rules drew a distinction between cadre strength and vacancies. Recruitment was permissible from different sources, and the Board was empowered to determine the method of recruitment and the number of candidates to be recruited for particular vacancies during a relevant period, subject to the minimum requirement that direct recruitment should not be less than 50% of the total cadre. Since no fixed quota was prescribed for promotees, the quota-rota principle could not be mechanically applied against them. The earlier direction on continuous officiation in Gaya Baksh Yadav was treated as dependent on the factual setting and subject to the statutory rules. Appointments made on an ad hoc basis could not claim seniority over regular direct recruits.

Conclusion: The seniority list prepared on the basis adopted by the authorities was upheld, and the challenge by the appellants failed.

---