A statutory Board may adopt the 1981 Seniority Rules and rank direct recruits by merit.

The petitioners were appointed as Routine Grade Clerks in the Board’s Group ‘C’ cadre through a 1996 recruitment process.

The Board had not published the recruitment merit list. An RTI appeal resulted in an observation that the Board held relevant recruitment records, and the Board subsequently published a draft gradation list applying Rule 5 of the West Bengal Services (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981 (“1981 Rules”), based on date of joining.

Anup Banik objected, contending that Rule 4, which determines seniority by order of merit, applied to direct recruits. The Board initially rejected his objection and issued a final list in 2017, which he challenged in WPA 31113 of 2017.

During that proceeding, the Board constituted a three-member commission, adopted the 1981 Rules, and issued a modified gradation list on 24 July 2024 applying Rule 4. Employees affected by that list challenged it in WPA 21988 of 2024, including on the grounds that the Board lacked authority to adopt the Rules without prior State approval and that the list lacked a proper documentary basis.

1. Whether the Board was entitled to adopt the 1981 Rules for determining the seniority of its employees without prior approval of the State Government.

2. Whether Rule 4, rather than Rule 5, applied to determine the seniority of the 1996 direct recruits and whether the modified gradation list dated 24 July 2024 was sustainable.

The Court applied Rules 4 and 5 of the West Bengal Services (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981: Rule 4 provides for seniority in order of merit, while Rule 5 concerns seniority on promotion and does not govern direct recruits.

The Court also considered Section 27(4) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963, which requires State approval for regulations; it held that the Board’s adoption of the 1981 Rules was not the making of a regulation under that provision.

The Court further relied on the principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate, finding that the petitioners challenging the 2024 list had not objected when the Board earlier published a draft list under the 1981 Rules.

The Court considered the Board’s status as an autonomous, State-funded parastatal body and found no material establishing that prior governmental approval was required for its adoption of the 1981 Rules.

It rejected the argument based on Section 27(4), distinguishing the adoption of the Rules from the making of a regulation, and noted that the Board had taken a conscious decision to apply the Rules to streamline seniority determination.

On the applicable seniority rule, the Court held that Rule 4 was appropriate for direct recruits and that Rule 5, which concerns promotion, had no application.

It also rejected the 2024 petitioners’ challenge to the Board’s adoption of the Rules, noting their earlier failure to object when the draft list was prepared under those same Rules.

It directed the Board to act in terms of its modified Group ‘C’ gradation list dated 24 July 2024 (Memo No. 175/Sec/24) and to grant the consequential benefits arising from that list forthwith.