Promotees' seniority is determined by date of promotion, not date of inclusion in suitability lists.

The petitioner was appointed as a Constable (Radio) in 1984 and confirmed in 1989.

He passed the Basic Radio Technical Course (BRTC) in 1994 and was included in a suitability list for promotion to Head Constable in 1999.

While he was awaiting promotion, the State conducted direct recruitment for Head Constables on 08/04/2002.

The petitioner was subsequently promoted on 22/10/2002.

Initially, following a representation and a previous court direction in W.P. No. 1768/2011, the respondents granted the petitioner seniority effective from his date of passing BRTC via an order dated 19/03/2012.

Following a judgment in a similar case (Tahir Khan v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 7919/2014), the respondents issued the impugned order dated 11/01/2018, withdrawing the retrospective seniority and placing him below the 2002 direct recruits.

1. Whether a promotee is entitled to seniority from the date of inclusion in a suitability list or from the date of actual promotion.

2. Whether the direct recruits of the year 2002 are senior to the petitioner, who was promoted in the same calendar year but joined later.

Clause 14 of General Operating Procedure (GOP) No. 98/2001.

Rule 12 of the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961.

Under GOP Clause 14(4), if a direct recruit joins before a promotee within the same year, the direct recruit ranks senior.

Seniority cannot be granted from a date prior to the employee's entry into the cadre unless specific rules provide otherwise.

The court reasoned that inclusion in a suitability list (1999) does not equate to an appointment or promotion; seniority can only be counted from the date of actual promotion to the cadre.

Regarding the inter-se seniority with direct recruits, the court interpreted Clause 14 of the GOP to mean that because the direct recruits joined in April 2002 and the petitioner was promoted in October 2002, the direct recruits were rightfully placed above him.

The court noted that the previous order (19/03/2012) granting the petitioner retrospective seniority was "erroneous" as it misinterpreted a simple direction to "consider representation" as a mandate to grant relief.

Furthermore, the court held that although the petitioner was not given a prior hearing before his seniority was withdrawn, a remand was unnecessary because the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal entitlement to the earlier seniority date, making a hearing a "futile exercise".

The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned orders dated 11/01/2018 and subsequent lists.

The petitioner's failure to challenge the gradation lists for several years also constituted a waiver of his right to challenge his seniority status.