Service seniority must follow the applicable rules; retrospective seniority is unavailable without an express back-dated appointment.

Seniority had to be fixed under the applicable service rules from the date of substantive appointment, unless the appointment order expressly granted a back date. Because the respondent's appointment order contained no such clause, retrospective seniority from the date of vacancy was refused. A claim of hostile discrimination also failed, as the comparators were governed by a different recruitment and seniority regime and could not establish parity under Article 14. The rejection of the respondent's claim was therefore restored, and retrospective seniority was denied.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent was entitled to retrospective seniority from the date of occurrence of vacancy instead of the date of promotion. (ii) Whether denial of that benefit amounted to hostile discrimination under Article 14 when other persons were granted seniority under a different set of rules.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent was entitled to retrospective seniority from the date of occurrence of vacancy instead of the date of promotion.

Analysis: Seniority had to be determined under Rule 21 of the 1990 Rules, which fixes seniority from the date of substantive appointment unless the appointment order expressly gives a back date. The respondent's appointment order contained no such back date. The principle in the earlier decision relied upon by the High Court concerned ad hoc promotees, quota, and fortuitous service and did not govern the present factual matrix. The governing rule did not permit seniority to relate back to the date when the vacancy arose.

Conclusion: The claim for retrospective seniority was rejected and seniority could be reckoned only from the date of promotion.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of that benefit amounted to hostile discrimination under Article 14 when other persons were granted seniority under a different set of rules.

Analysis: The persons referred to by the High Court were governed by a different recruitment and seniority regime under the amended 2005 Rules. A comparison across separate statutory schemes could not establish hostile discrimination. The recommendation of the Commission was also not binding on the State Government, and similarly situated persons under Rule 21 had all been treated alike.

Conclusion: No hostile discrimination was made out against the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The High Court erred in quashing the rejection order and in granting retrospective seniority. The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Seniority is governed by the applicable service rules and, absent an express rule or appointment order conferring a back date, it cannot be granted retrospectively from the date of vacancy; discrimination cannot be inferred by comparing employees governed by different service rules.

---