Absorption and seniority under surplus-personnel rules must follow continuous substantive service and regular recruitment history.

Delay in filing the special appeal was condoned because the appellant had pursued review proceedings and the explanation for the delay was supported by the record. The appellant was treated as regularly appointed and properly absorbed under the applicable absorption rules, since the original appointment followed the prescribed recruitment process, was confirmed, and the statutory scheme deemed such absorption regular. Seniority was required to be fixed by reference to continuous substantive service, and on that basis the appellant ranked above the contesting respondents. The revised seniority list placing him below them was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the delay in filing the special appeal deserved condonation; (ii) whether the appellant was regularly appointed and properly absorbed in the Mines Department under the absorption rules; (iii) whether the appellant's seniority was correctly fixed above the contesting respondents.

Issue (i): whether the delay in filing the special appeal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The appeal was filed after disposal of the review petition, and the period consumed in pursuing review was treated as a sufficient explanation for the delay. The Court also noted that the appellant had been prevented from filing the appeal earlier and that the explanation was supported by the record.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the appellant was regularly appointed and properly absorbed in the Mines Department under the absorption rules.

Analysis: The appellant's original appointment as Lecturer was made through the prescribed selection process and was followed by confirmation. The absorption rules defined a regularly appointed person as one appointed according to the prescribed recruitment procedure, and the record showed that the Government itself treated the appellant as absorbed and regularly appointed. The Court also relied on the rule framework governing absorption, including the provisions dealing with absorption committee, equivalent posts, and deemed regular appointment on absorption.

Conclusion: The appellant was properly absorbed and was to be treated as regularly appointed in favour of the appellant.

Issue (iii): whether the appellant's seniority was correctly fixed above the contesting respondents.

Analysis: Seniority under the absorption rules had to be determined with reference to continuous substantive service. The appellant had earlier substantive service in the feeder post and had been confirmed before absorption, while the contesting respondents' substantive service commenced later. On that basis, the Court agreed that the appellant was senior and that the revised seniority list placing him below the respondents could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The appellant was senior to the contesting respondents in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The remand order and the order dismissing review were set aside, the Tribunal's decision was restored, and the challenge to the appellant's seniority and absorption failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an employee was regularly recruited and confirmed under the applicable recruitment procedure, later absorbed under surplus-personnel rules, and the statutory scheme deemed such absorption to be regular, seniority had to be fixed by reference to continuous substantive service under the absorption rules.

---