Direct recruit seniority follows merit, not roster points, where reservation roster serves representation and not ranking.

In direct recruitment, roster points used to implement reservation do not determine inter se seniority among candidates selected together; seniority follows the order of merit in the selection process unless the governing rules expressly provide otherwise. The Supreme Court noted that this principle had already been settled by binding precedent and upheld the High Court's application of it to the Munsiff appointees, whose appointments were made after the law had been clarified. The challenge therefore failed, and seniority was to be fixed by merit rather than roster points.

---

---

Issues: Whether the inter se seniority of Munsiffs appointed by direct recruitment on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission was required to be fixed on the basis of roster points or on the basis of merit obtained in the selection.

Analysis: The settled position is that the roster system operates to ensure proper representation under the reservation policy, but it does not govern inter se seniority among direct recruits. Seniority among candidates selected together is to be determined by the order of merit in the selection process, and roster points cannot be used as seniority points. The High Court had correctly applied this principle, which had been declared by binding precedent and applied to the 2003 appointees whose appointments were made after that legal position had been settled.

Conclusion: The inter se seniority was to be fixed according to merit and not roster points; the challenge to the High Court's view failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In direct recruitment, roster points serve the purpose of reservation and do not determine inter se seniority; seniority must follow the merit position of the selected candidates unless the governing rule expressly provides otherwise.

---