Promotional seniority depends on regular selection, and ad hoc service cannot count unless rules allow retrospective regularisation.

Service rules governing promotional seniority required inter se seniority in the Senior Clerk cadre to be counted from the date of regular promotion after due process, not from ad hoc officiation. A promotion made without the prescribed suitability test was outside the rule-based selection scheme and could not be treated as regular promotion. In the absence of any rule permitting retrospective regularisation, later regular promotion did not relate back to the earlier ad hoc date for seniority purposes. The principle applied to appointees or promotees outside the rules, and the ad hoc period could not be added for seniority in the promoted cadre.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether inter se seniority in the cadre of Senior Clerk was governed by paragraph 302 of the Railway Establishment Manual and had to be reckoned from the date of regular promotion after due process; (ii) whether ad hoc promotion granted without holding the prescribed suitability test could be treated as regular promotion; (iii) whether regular promotion, once granted after the suitability test, could relate back to the date of ad hoc promotion for seniority purposes; (iv) whether the earlier decision on appointees de hors the rules applied to the present case.

Issue (i): Whether inter se seniority in the cadre of Senior Clerk was governed by paragraph 302 of the Railway Establishment Manual and had to be reckoned from the date of regular promotion after due process.

Analysis: Paragraph 302 provided that in categories partly filled by promotion and partly by direct recruitment, seniority of promotees is determined by the date of regular promotion after due process. The cadre dispute therefore had to be decided by the date on which each employee entered the promotional grade through regular selection, not by the date of ad hoc officiation.

Conclusion: Seniority had to be fixed from the date of regular promotion after due process, and not from the ad hoc date.

Issue (ii): Whether ad hoc promotion granted without holding the prescribed suitability test could be treated as regular promotion.

Analysis: Paragraph 213 required that promotion could be made only if the employee was fit for the higher post, and paragraph 214(c)(iii) and paragraph 214(c)(v) made the suitability test an integral part of the promotional process. A promotion made without holding that test was therefore outside the rule-based scheme and could not be equated with regular promotion merely because the test had not been held at proper intervals.

Conclusion: The ad hoc promotion could not be treated as regular promotion after due process of selection.

Issue (iii): Whether regular promotion, once granted after the suitability test, could relate back to the date of ad hoc promotion for seniority purposes.

Analysis: The governing rules contained no provision permitting a later regular promotion to take effect retrospectively from the date of earlier ad hoc officiation. In the absence of such an enabling rule, the period spent on ad hoc promotion could not be tagged on to claim seniority in the promoted cadre.

Conclusion: Regular promotion did not relate back to the date of ad hoc promotion for seniority purposes.

Issue (iv): Whether the earlier decision on appointees de hors the rules applied to the present case.

Analysis: The earlier decision laid down that persons appointed outside the rules cannot claim seniority from the initial ad hoc entry but only from the date of selection and appointment in accordance with the rules. The same principle applied here because the respondents had been promoted ad hoc without the mandatory suitability test.

Conclusion: The earlier decision applied and supported denial of seniority for the ad hoc period.

Final Conclusion: The ad hoc period could not be counted towards seniority in the cadre of Senior Clerk, and the seniority list based on regular promotion dates stood upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the service rules prescribe regular promotion after due process and make a suitability test a condition precedent, ad hoc officiation cannot be counted for seniority unless the rules expressly provide retrospective regularisation.

---