Summary
A deemed promotion date granted under seniority rules determined inter se ranking but did not satisfy the separate recruitment requirement of three years’ continuous service in the feeder grade. The respondent had not completed that service when promoted as Section Officer. The High Court wrongly used the seniority rules to determine recruitment eligibility, and the administrative order setting aside the promotion was restored.
Issues
- Whether deemed seniority could substitute for the continuous feeder-grade service required for promotion.
- Which rules governed the disputed eligibility.
Held
- The 1982 seniority rules and 1967 recruitment rules operated in different fields. Deemed-date provisions governed seniority, while eligibility for Section Officer promotion was governed by the recruitment rules alone. (¶ 8–9)
- The plain continuous-service requirement meant completed uninterrupted service in the feeder grade. Counting a notional date for seniority could not supply service not rendered for the separate eligibility condition. (¶ 9)
- The respondent, actually promoted to Office Superintendent only on 22 October 2007, had not completed three years in that grade before the 1 February 2008 promotion and was ineligible. (¶ 8–10)
Result
Appeal allowed. Single Judge and Division Bench judgments set aside; Additional Divisional Commissioner’s order dated 20 May 2010 restored. Respondent 3’s Section Officer promotion set aside and action directed to promote the appellant as ordered by that authority. No costs.