Regular service in an aided college cannot be excluded from promotion eligibility after State takeover.

The petitioner was appointed as a Library Restorer on regular basis on 18 March 1996 in Maharaja Sansar Chand Memorial Degree College, Thural, a privately managed college receiving 95% grant-in-aid from the State Government.

He obtained a Diploma in Library Science in 1997.

Under the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 25% of the posts of Assistant Librarian were to be filled by promotion from eligible Restorers/Library Attendants possessing the prescribed qualification and five years’ regular service.

The State took over the services of the college staff with effect from 9 November 2005, but treated the petitioner as a fresh entrant in the cadre of Library Restorer under the terms of takeover.

Respondent No.3 was promoted as Assistant Librarian on 24 January 2009, whereas the petitioner’s previous service in the aided college was not counted.

He was ultimately promoted only on 18 August 2011 after completing five years’ service from the date of takeover.

The petitioner sought promotion from 9 November 2005 or, alternatively, from 24 January 2009, with consequential benefits and seniority over respondent No.3.

Whether the petitioner’s regular service rendered as Library Restorer in the aided, privately managed college prior to the State takeover could be counted for determining his eligibility for promotion as Assistant Librarian.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to promotion as Assistant Librarian with effect from 24 January 2009, the date on which respondent No.3 was promoted, along with consequential benefits and seniority over respondent No.3.

Whether the petitioner’s placement as a fresh entrant for seniority purposes under the takeover conditions extinguished or excluded his past regular service for promotion eligibility.

The Court applied the Recruitment and Promotion Rules governing the post of Assistant Librarian, under which 25% of the posts were to be filled by promotion from Restorers/Library Attendants possessing a Diploma or Certificate in Library Science and five years’ regular service.

It considered the takeover condition treating absorbed employees as fresh entrants and placing them at the bottom of the Government seniority list, but held that such placement did not automatically erase their past regular service for determining promotion eligibility.

Relying on Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. Headmistress, Girls High School and Junior College, Anji (Mothi), Tahsil and District Wardha, (2025) 10 SCC 248, the Court recognised that service in an aided institution is akin to service under the State, particularly where the post is sanctioned or approved and the employee receives Government-supported service benefits.

It further applied Union of India v. C.N. Ponnappan, (1996) 1 SCC 524, and Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri v. V.M. Joseph, (1998) 5 SCC 305, for the principle that regular service rendered at an earlier place or department cannot be ignored for determining eligibility for promotion merely because the employee is transferred or placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the new place; eligibility for promotion is distinct from seniority.

The Court found that the petitioner had rendered regular service from 18 March 1996 in a grant-in-aid college and had acquired the required Diploma in Library Science in 1997.

Although the State takeover terms treated him as a fresh entrant for seniority in the Government cadre, that condition could not be construed as wiping out his past regular service for promotion eligibility.

Applying the principles in Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade, the Court held that service in the aided college was sufficiently connected with State-supported service and could not be disregarded, particularly after the petitioner’s services were taken over by the State.

The Court also relied on C.N. Ponnappan and Scientific Advisor to distinguish seniority from eligibility: an employee may be placed at the bottom of the seniority list after transfer or absorption, but prior regular service remains relevant for satisfying the qualifying-service requirement for promotion.

Since the petitioner had the requisite qualification and service and vacancies existed when respondent No.3 was promoted, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion from the same date, namely 24 January 2009.

The State was directed to promote the petitioner as Assistant Librarian with effect from 24 January 2009, with all consequential benefits, including seniority, increments and further promotional benefits.

The petitioner was to be assigned seniority above respondent No.3.

The arrears arising from the retrospective promotion were directed to be paid within six months; failing such payment, interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of judgment until actual payment.