Promotees Rank Senior to Direct Recruits in Same Year Appointments: Rajasthan HC

In a decisive clarification of service jurisprudence, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that departmental promotees must be assigned seniority over direct recruits when both are appointed against vacancies in the same year. The Bench struck down a revised seniority list that erroneously placed in-service candidates selected via limited direct recruitment above regular promotees, reinforcing the binding nature of statutory service regulations.

Justice Ganesh Ram Meena heard the dispute regarding the inter se seniority of Assistant Engineers (PLCC) in the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (RVVPNL). The petitioners, who were regular promotees from the year 2004, challenged the seniority list dated April 12, 2016, which placed them below respondents who were appointed through a limited direct recruitment quota in the same calendar year.

Key Takeaways

Supremacy of Service Regulations

Statutory rules governing inter se seniority between different sources of recruitment are binding and cannot be bypassed by administrative actions or delayed representations.

Seniority Preference for Promotees

Where the law provides for a preference, promotees appointed in a particular year naturally rank senior to direct recruits of the same year, even if the latter are in-service candidates.

Limited Direct Recruitment Status

Candidates appointed against a specific 'direct recruitment quota'—even if reserved for departmental employees—are legally classified as direct recruits, not promotees.

Delayed Challenge Justified

Delay and laches do not apply when a fresh cause of action arises from a revised seniority list issued pursuant to a court's previous directions.

Classification of Direct Recruits vs. Promotees

The Rajasthan High Court addressed the classification of the private respondents who argued they should be treated as promotees since they were already serving as Junior Engineers. The Bench observed that since they were appointed against the 1/3rd quota earmarked for direct recruitment from amongst in-service candidates, their legal status remained that of 'direct recruits'. The Court noted that a conjoint reading of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Services of Engineers (Recruitment, Promotion & Seniority etc.) Resolution, 1969 and the recruitment notification made it clear that such appointments were distinct from the 75% promotion quota.

Inter Se Seniority under Regulation 27

The Rajasthan High Court focused on the application of Regulation 27(ii) of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Services of Engineers (Recruitment, Promotion & Seniority etc.) Resolution, 1969. The Bench observed that “Regulation No. 27(ii) clearly provides that, if two or more persons are appointed to the service concerned in the same year, a person appointed by promotion shall be senior to a person appointed by direct recruitment. Since this Court has already held that all the three private respondents are direct recruits, in view of Clause 27(ii), they are liable to be placed below the petitioners, as the petitioners are promotees against the vacancies of the year 2004, whereas the private respondents are direct recruits against the vacancies of the year 2004.”

Ratio

Under the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Services of Engineers (Recruitment, Promotion & Seniority etc.) Resolution, 1969, specifically Regulation 27(ii), if a promotee and a direct recruit are both appointed to a service in the same year, the promotee shall be considered senior to the direct recruit. This principle applies even if the direct recruit was an in-service candidate appointed through a limited departmental competitive examination against a specific direct recruitment quota.

Background

The petitioners were promoted to Assistant Engineer (PLCC) on September 25, 2004. The private respondents were appointed on October 16, 2004, against the 1/3rd direct recruitment quota for in-service degree holders. While earlier seniority lists placed petitioners above respondents, a challenge by third parties in Deepak Mathur & Ors. v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasar Nigam Ltd. & Ors. led to a re-determination of vacancies. The RVVPNL subsequently issued a new list in 2016, placing the private respondents higher based on their 'experience' and 'degree holder' status. The respondents argued the petition was barred by delay as the dispute originated in 2005. However, the Rajasthan High Court rejected this, noting that no third-party rights (promotions) had ripened in the interim, distinguishing the case from Amrit Lal Berry and Ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Ors. and Vijay Kumar Kaul and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.. The Bench further distinguished the present facts from Akhilesh Prasad Vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission and Ors. regarding the classification of promotees.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4386/2016
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:54500
Case Title: Sagra Ram Godara & Ors. v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasar Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Deepesh Singh Beniwal
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Chayan Bothra, Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Ojas Gupta, Mr. Sunil Bhandari

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 31066