https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170998 Retrospective seniority and notional promotion could not be claimed by promotee officers under the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Service Rules because the unamended Rule 5 governed filling of substantive vacancies and did not establish a fixed 50:50 cadre quota. The 50:50 quota was introduced only by the 24.9.1999 amendment, and nothing in the text made that change retrospective. Rule 25(c) tied inter se seniority to vacancy rotation under Rule 5, so it did not justify rearranging seniority for an earlier period. Seniority could not be assigned from dates when the officers were not borne in the cadre, and the direct recruits already validly in service could not be displaced. en-us Wed, 16 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Nov 2015 23:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170998 Retrospective seniority and notional promotion could not be claimed by promotee officers under the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Service Rules because the unamended Rule 5 governed filling of substantive vacancies and did not establish a fixed 50:50 cadre quota. The 50:50 quota was introduced only by the 24.9.1999 amendment, and nothing in the text made that change retrospective. Rule 25(c) tied inter se seniority to vacancy rotation under Rule 5, so it did not justify rearranging seniority for an earlier period. Seniority could not be assigned from dates when the officers were not borne in the cadre, and the direct recruits already validly in service could not be displaced. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170998