Seniority prevails over date of eligibility acquisition for promotion unless recruitment rules specifically prioritize earlier eligibility.

Respondent No. 1, Tabassum Shamshad, was appointed as a Junior Engineer (JE) on an ad hoc basis in 1997 and regularized on October 1, 1999, possessing a Diploma

She subsequently acquired a Degree in 2008

The Recruitment Rules (2018) established a 50% promotion quota for Diploma holders and 50% for Degree holders

In 2023, the petitioners promoted respondent Nos. 2–4 (who held Degrees since their initial 1999 appointment) to Assistant Engineer, bypassing Respondent No. 1 in seniority

The petitioners argued that Respondent No. 1 only became eligible for the "Degree quota" three years after obtaining her degree in 2008, citing K.K. Dixit v. Rajasthan Housing Board

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ruled in favor of Respondent No. 1, quashing the administration's rejection of her representation

1. Whether the acquisition of a Degree subsequent to entering service resets or alters an employee's position in a combined seniority list for the purpose of promotion eligibility

2. Whether the period of service rendered prior to obtaining a Degree can be excluded when calculating the qualifying service for promotion under a Degree-holder quota when the rules use the conjunction "and" between qualification and experience

The court primarily relied on the principle that "Seniority" and "Eligibility" are distinct legal concepts

It applied the precedent from R.B. Desai v. S.K. Khanolker, which holds that when persons from different sources enter a common cadre, seniority counts from the date of continuous officiation, and earlier acquisition of eligibility does not override seniority unless specific rules state otherwise

Furthermore, it applied A.K. Raghumani Singh v. Gopal Chandra Nath, established that the use of the word "with" or "and" between a degree and years of service does not imply that the service must be "subsequent" to obtaining the degree

The Court analyzed Serial No. 11 of the Recruitment Rules, noting absolute parity in the grade, pay scale, and required five years of regular service for both Degree and Diploma holders

The Court distinguished the petitioners’ reliance on K.K. Dixit, noting that in Dixit, the rules explicitly created different experience tenures for Degree vs. Diploma holders (3 vs. 7 years), whereas the present rules mandate a uniform 5-year period

The Court observed that the use of the conjunction "and" in the present rules disjuncts the educational qualification from the tenure of service, meaning the experience does not have to be "post-degree"

Since a combined seniority list was maintained, the Court reasoned that Respondent No. 1’s seniority from 1999 must be respected; as she possessed both the Degree and the required years of service at the time of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting in 2023, she was eligible to be considered in the Degree quota based on her original seniority

The Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the Tribunal's judgment. The petitioners were directed to conduct a review DPC for Respondent No. 1, and if found eligible, promote her to Assistant Engineer with seniority above respondent Nos. 2-4 and grant consequential benefits, excluding back wages