Seniority determined from date of promotion governs over initial recruitment date under subsequent service rules.

The petitioner, appointed as an Assistant in the Patna High Court in 2003, challenged the Seniority List of Section Officers dated 01.11.2024

Under the Patna High Court Establishment (Appointment) Rules, 1997, the petitioner participated in interviews for promotion to Section Officer in 2019 and June 2020 but was found unsuitable by the Selection Committee

Following the notification of the Patna High Court Officers and Staff Rules, 2021, the petitioner appeared for a written test and computer proficiency test, eventually securing a promotion on 28.01.2022

The petitioner contended that as an appointee of 2003, his seniority should be governed by the 1997 Rules (seniority-cum-merit without a written test) and placed at Serial No. 36 instead of 153, alleging that juniors were promoted ahead of him

1. Whether the petitioner's promotion and subsequent seniority should be governed by the 1997 Rules or the 2021 Rules

2. Whether the writ petition was maintainable in the absence of impleading all affected parties in the seniority list

3. Whether the petitioner’s seniority can relate back to a period prior to his actual date of promotion

Rule 25 and Rule 26 of the Patna High Court Officers and Staff (Recruitment, Appointment, Promotion and other Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 2021

Rule 25 mandates that seniority in each category is determined by the date of the order of appointment in a substantive capacity

Rule 26 preserves the seniority of those appointed prior to the 2021 Rules as it stood on the date of commencement

Non-joinder of necessary parties (those whose seniority would be adversely affected) is fatal to a writ petition as per Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 204

The Court reasoned that the petitioner had twice failed to secure a promotion under the 1997 Rules after being found "not suitable" by the Interview Board/Committee in 2020. Consequently, he cannot claim the benefit of the old rules for a promotion he did not earn while those rules were active.

The Court clarified that a conjoint reading of Rules 25 and 26 of the 2021 Rules implies that seniority is reckoned from the date of the actual promotion order. Since the petitioner was promoted on 28.01.2022, his seniority must be counted from that date.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s interpretation of Rule 26, noting that the rule protects the seniority of those already promoted before 2021 and does not entitle new promotees to bypass them. Additionally, the Court noted the procedural defect of not impleading the 154 persons whose seniority would be displaced.

The Court found no merit in the claim for retrospective seniority or the application of the defunct 1997 Rules; the writ petition was dismissed.