Service rendered on deputation followed by permanent absorption in the same post counts toward seniority.

The applicant, initially a Teacher in the Education Department, was placed at the disposal of the Wildlife Protection Department as an Ecologist on 22.11.1995

During this period, he remained on deputation and underwent specialized training, including a Post Graduate Diploma in Wildlife Management

He was permanently absorbed into the Wildlife Protection Department via Government Order No. 245-FST of 2000 dated 29.06.2000, and his lien in the Education Department was terminated in 2002

In 2017, the respondents issued a final seniority list (Govt. Order No. 75-FST) reckoning the applicant's seniority from his date of formal absorption (29.06.2000) rather than his initial placement (22.11.1995), placing him at Serial No. 9

Consequently, the respondents promoted private respondents (alleged juniors) as In-charge Deputy Conservators of Forests

The applicant challenged these orders, seeking retrospective seniority from 1995

1. Whether the applicant's seniority in the Wildlife Protection Department should be reckoned from the date of his initial placement on deputation (22.11.1995) or from the date of formal absorption (29.06.2000)

2. Whether the promotion of private respondents as In-charge Deputy Conservators of Forests without resolving the applicant's seniority claim was legally sustainable

Rule 24 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, which stipulates that seniority is determined by the date of first substantive appointment to the service.

The equitable principle of service jurisprudence that continuous service rendered against a post, followed by regularization/absorption, should be considered for seniority purposes to avoid arbitrariness.

The established legal principle that seniority disputes must be settled before granting promotions to ensure fairness and prevent prejudice to senior employees.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant had continuously discharged the duties of an Ecologist since 1995 without interruption.

The Department itself treated him as an integral part of the cadre by sponsoring him for specialized professional training and repeatedly extending his deputation.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant was not a mere "temporary arrangement" but was effectively working against the post for a long duration before formal absorption.

It found the respondents' decision to ignore five years of continuous service (1995–2000) to be arbitrary and unjustified.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the respondents failed to settle the seniority position despite the applicant's persistent representations and previous High Court directions, instead choosing to promote juniors, which violated the principles of fairness and caused serious prejudice.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s service must be counted from 22.11.1995 for seniority purposes.

The respondents were directed to: (i) revise the seniority list of Assistant Conservators of Forests (Wildlife) by placing the applicant above the private respondents; and (ii) consider the applicant for promotion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests from the date his immediate junior was promoted, with all consequential benefits.

The exercise must be completed within three months.