Wait-list appointment and notional seniority: service benefits follow a binding judicial direction, with salary only from joining.

A candidate appointed from the wait-list pursuant to binding judicial directions was entitled to notional seniority and consequential service benefits from the select-list stage, because the appointment flowed from the earlier court mandate and not from an ordinary earlier selection. The appointee was therefore to be placed at the end of the select list for seniority, while salary remained payable only from the date of assuming charge. Rule 10 of the recruitment rules did not defeat this relief on the facts, as the specific directions governing the appointment controlled the entitlement. The writ petitions failed and the Tribunal's grant of notional seniority with related service benefits was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a candidate appointed from the wait-list pursuant to judicial directions was entitled to notional seniority and consequential service benefits from the date of the select list; (ii) Whether Rule 10 of the recruitment rules barred such a claim.

Issue (i): Whether a candidate appointed from the wait-list pursuant to judicial directions was entitled to notional seniority and consequential service benefits from the date of the select list.

Analysis: The appointment was made in compliance with the earlier direction of the Supreme Court, which required consideration of the applicant's case on the basis of his position in the waiting list. Once the appointment was secured through operation of the wait-list, the candidate could not be treated on the same footing as those appointed earlier from the select list. The Court held that, in such circumstances, the appointee was entitled to be placed at the end of the select list for seniority purposes and to receive other consequential benefits, while salary remained payable only from the date of assuming charge.

Conclusion: The claim for notional seniority and consequential benefits was allowed in substance and was held to be maintainable in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 10 of the recruitment rules barred such a claim.

Analysis: The Court held that the matter stood governed by the earlier binding directions of the Supreme Court, which had directed consideration of the applicant's case from the waiting list. In view of that specific direction, the broader reliance on Rule 10 was treated as unnecessary for deciding the entitlement to seniority benefits. The rule did not defeat the relief granted on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: Rule 10 did not prevent grant of notional seniority and related benefits to the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed, and the Tribunal's grant of notional seniority with consequential service benefits, subject to salary only from the date of joining, stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A person appointed from a waiting list pursuant to a binding judicial direction is entitled to be placed for seniority at the end of the select list and may receive consequential service benefits consistent with that appointment, notwithstanding a later date of actual joining.

---