https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184586 Where recruitment rules governed recruitment, eligibility, training, probation and appointment but were silent on seniority, the State could validly prescribe seniority by administrative resolution and count the training period for direct recruits. The Court held that seniority need not always follow the date of appointment and may be regulated by a rational prescription where the rules do not exclude it. The retrospective application of that resolution did not infringe vested rights of promotee officers because no settled seniority position had crystallised and no enforceable promotion right had accrued on the basis of the defective select list. The State's seniority resolution was therefore upheld. en-us Mon, 03 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184586 Where recruitment rules governed recruitment, eligibility, training, probation and appointment but were silent on seniority, the State could validly prescribe seniority by administrative resolution and count the training period for direct recruits. The Court held that seniority need not always follow the date of appointment and may be regulated by a rational prescription where the rules do not exclude it. The retrospective application of that resolution did not infringe vested rights of promotee officers because no settled seniority position had crystallised and no enforceable promotion right had accrued on the basis of the defective select list. The State's seniority resolution was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184586