- (1.) In the present appeal, dispute relates to the seniority of the appellants(hereinafter referred to as the 'promotees') vis- -vis private respondents, who were direct recruits (hereinafter referred to as the 'direct recruits') in the posts of Excise and Taxation Officer (ETO).
(2.) Shorn of any nuances and allegories, admitted facts are that the promotees were promoted to the post of ETO on 9.1.2004, whereas, the direct recruits joined the said posts of ETO on 3.1.2004. Thus, these direct recruits joined the said posts of ETO earlier than the promotees. Seniority of promotees and direct recruits to the said post is governed by Rule 11 of the Haryana Excise and Taxation Department (Group-B) Service Rules, 1988 (To be referred as 'Service Rules' hereafter). This rule reads as under:- "11. Seniority - Seniority inter se of the members of the service, shall be determined by the length of continuous service on any post in the service. Provided that where there are different cadres in the service, the seniority shall be determined separately for each cadre: Provided further that in case of a member appointed by direct recruitment, the order of merit determined by the Commission or any other recruiting authority as the case may be, shall not be disturbed in fixing the seniority: Provided further that in the case of two or more members appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined as follows:- (a) a member appointed by direct recruitment shall be senior to a member appointed by promotion or by transfer: (b) a member appointed by promotion shall be senior to a member appointed by transfer. (c) In the case of a member by promotion or by transfer, seniority shall be determined according to the seniority of such members in the appointment from which they are promoted or transferred and (d) In the case of members appointed by transfer from different cadres, their seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being given to a member who was drawing a higher rate of pay in his previous appointment, and if the rate of pay drawn are also the same, then by the length of their service in the appointments and if the length of such service is also same, the older member shall be senior to the younger member."
(3.) As per aforesaid rules, seniority is to be determined by length of continuous service on any post in the service. On the plain application of this rule to the facts of the present case, it becomes manifest that the direct recruits, who joined the post on 3.1.2004, would rank senior to the appellants/promotees, who were promoted to the said post on 9.1.2004. It is not in dispute that initially the direct recruits were shown senior to the appellants. Thereafter, tentative seniority list was issued wherein appellants were shown senior to these direct recruits. However, after considering the objections to the said seniority list, final seniority list was drawn by the State again showing private respondents/direct recruits as senior to the appellants. Appellants challenged the said seniority list by filing the writ petition which has been dismissed by learned single Judge vide impugned order dated 19.12.2011.;