SC Rules on Seniority Dispute Between Direct Recruits and Promotees in Rajasthan Tax Department

The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the seniority dispute between direct recruits (DRs) and departmental promotees (DPs) for the post of Tax Assistants in the Commercial Taxes Department of the State of Rajasthan. The appeals were filed by Manohar Lal Jat and others against the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, which had ruled in favor of the DPs. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the promotees were rightly placed above the direct recruits in the seniority list.

Background of the Case

The case stemmed from the recruitment of Tax Assistants in Rajasthan. On September 1, 2009, the Finance Department approved the creation of 531 posts of Tax Assistants, later increased to 554. The Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services General Branch Rules, 1975 (as amended on December 1, 2010) provided that:

• 80% of the posts would be filled through direct recruitment.
• 20% of the posts would be filled through selection from ministerial staff via departmental examination.

The recruitment process was conducted separately for both categories:

• On January 25, 2011, the department issued an advertisement for direct recruitment.
• On May 24, 2011, a separate advertisement was issued for departmental promotions.

The direct recruits underwent a selection process involving a written test (April 17, 2011) and a typing test (May 15, 2011). However, due to procedural delays in police verification and medical examinations, appointment letters were issued on July 4, 2011.

In contrast, the departmental promotees’ selection process was conducted more swiftly. Their examination was held on June 11-12, 2011, results were announced on June 14, and appointment letters were issued on June 23, 2011. Consequently, the DPs assumed charge before the DRs.

Arguments by the Petitioners (Direct Recruits)

The direct recruits contended that:

• The seniority list, which placed DPs above them, was unfair and contrary to the law.
• The selection process for direct recruits started earlier than that for the DPs.
• The delay in their appointments was due to administrative reasons (police verification and medical checks) and not their fault.
• The state government acted with bias by issuing appointment letters to DPs first, despite DRs completing their selection process earlier.
• Rule 27(2) of the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services Rules, 1975, stated that those selected in an earlier process should be ranked senior.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Rajasthan and Departmental Promotees)

The state and the DPs countered:

• The appointments were made as per the established rules.
• The departmental promotees did not need police verification and medical checks, allowing them to be appointed faster.
• Rule 27 provided that seniority is determined from the date of appointment, not the date of selection.
• The direct recruits’ argument about a manipulated delay was speculative and unsupported by evidence.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed Rule 27 and concluded:

1. Date of Appointment Determines Seniority

The Court upheld the High Court’s ruling that seniority is determined by the date of appointment. It ruled:

“The principal mandate of Rule 27 is that seniority is fixed based on the date of appointment, not the date of selection.”

2. Rule 27(2) Does Not Apply to Different Recruitment Categories

The Court rejected the direct recruits’ reliance on Rule 27(2), stating that it applies when two batches are selected within the same category (e.g., two different batches of direct recruits). However, it does not apply when comparing direct recruits and promotees.

“The second proviso to Rule 27 applies within the same category. It does not override the main rule that seniority is determined based on the date of appointment.”

3. No Evidence of Malafide Action

The Court dismissed allegations of bias, noting that the government followed due process.

“The difference in appointment dates resulted from administrative processes. There is no evidence of favoritism.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The appeal by direct recruits was dismissed.
• The High Court’s decision upholding the seniority of promotees over direct recruits was affirmed.
• Appointments made in accordance with the existing seniority list were valid.

Conclusion

This judgment settles the seniority dispute in favor of departmental promotees. It reiterates that seniority is determined based on the date of appointment unless specific rules state otherwise. The ruling serves as a precedent for similar cases where multiple recruitment processes occur within the same department.

Petitioner Name: Manohar Lal Jat & Ors..
Respondent Name: State of Rajasthan & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Indira Banerjee.
Place Of Incident: Rajasthan, India.
Judgment Date: 26-11-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Manohar Lal Jat & Or vs State of Rajasthan & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 26-11-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by S Ravindra Bhat
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category