Seniority by date of appointment prevails where different recruitment streams enter a cadre under separate quotas and eligibility routes.

Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services (General Branch) Rules, 1975 fixes seniority in the cadre ordinarily from the date of appointment. The limited exception in the second proviso protects earlier-selection seniority only where recruits belong to the same source or class and the later appointment is delayed for administrative reasons. In a composite first-time recruitment to the Tax Assistant cadre, where direct recruits and departmental promotees entered through different quotas and eligibility streams, seniority followed actual appointment dates. Earlier commencement of a selection process did not displace the main rule, and departmental promotees ranked senior because they were appointed earlier.

---

---

Issues: Whether inter se seniority between direct recruits and departmental promotees to the post of Tax Assistant was to be governed by the date of appointment under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services (General Branch) Rules, 1975, or by the principle that candidates selected in an earlier recruitment process rank senior to those selected in a subsequent recruitment process.

Analysis: Rule 27, as amended, provides that seniority in the cadre is ordinarily fixed from the date of appointment. The second proviso preserves a limited exception, under which persons selected and appointed as a result of an earlier selection rank senior to those selected and appointed in a later selection. That proviso operates to protect seniority where there are two selections from the same source or category, and appointment in the earlier process is delayed for administrative reasons. On the facts, the recruitment to the newly created cadre was a composite first-time exercise, the two advertisements were issued for different quotas and different eligibility streams, and the departmental promotees were appointed earlier than the direct recruits. The rule did not warrant displacing seniority based on an earlier selection commencement when the actual appointment dates were different and the cadre entry was governed by the main provision.

Conclusion: The departmental promotees were entitled to rank senior in accordance with their earlier dates of appointment, and the direct recruits had no right to claim seniority above them.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a service rule fixes seniority from the date of appointment and a proviso preserving earlier-selection seniority applies only within the same class of recruits, seniority cannot be shifted in favour of candidates from a different recruitment stream merely because their selection process commenced earlier.

---