/2022 INSC 0901/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.         OF 2022
  (Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 27603/2019)
SMT. IMLIKOKLA LONGCHAR & ORS.          …. APPELLANT(S) 
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NAGALAND & ORS.    …. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
    ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. 
Leave granted.
2. The   origin   of   the   controversy   giving   rise   to   the   present   appeal   goes
back to the year 2007 and there have been several rounds of litigations
over   the   issue   which   we   shall   briefly   narrate   in   the   subsequent
paragraphs   of   this   judgment.   The   contesting   parties   in   this   appeal   are
the   appellants   and   the   respondent   no.4   (Keruupfeu   –   “K”).   The
educational   authorities   of   the   State   of   Nagaland,   who   are   also
respondents in this appeal are supporting the appellants. The dispute is
on the question of seniority the appellants and K in the cadre of senior
lecturer under the State Council of Educational Research and Training
1

Service   (SCERT),   Department   of   Education,   Government   of   Nagaland.
The appellants are collectively seeking seniority over K.
3. We   are   giving   below   a   table   showing   the   career   graph   of   K   and   the
four appellants (henceforth referred to as A1, A2, A3 and A4 respectively
in descending order from the table) in their respective cadres:­
Name Parties Date of
Appointment Date of
Regularisation
as Lecturers/Senior 
Lecturer Date of
Temporary
Promotion as
Senior Lecturer Date of 
Regularisation    as 
as Senior 
Lecturer  
Smt.
Imlikokla
Longchar Appellant
no.1 30.10.1992
Lecturer on
contract 28.03.2001 with effect
from 15.01.2001
regularised as lecturer 20.11.2003 with
effect from
14.11.2003 08.11.2007
with effect
from
14.11.2003
Smt Atula
Aier Appellant
no.2 30.10.1992
Lecturer on
contract 28.03.2001 with effect
from 15.01.2001
regularised as lecturer 20.11.2003 with
effect from
14.11.2003 08.11.2007
with effect
from
14.11.2003
Shri
Limatoshi Appellant
no.3 18.02.1993
Lecturer on
contract 28.03.2001 with effect
from 15.01.2001
regularised as a
lecturer 20.11.2003 with
effect from
20.01.2001 08.11.2007
with effect
from
20.01.2001
Smt Alemla
Jamir Appellant
no.4 31.03.1993
Lecturer on
contract 28.03.2001 with effect
from 15.01.2001
regularised as lecturer 20.11.2003 with
effect from
20.01.2001 08.11.2007
with effect
from
20.01.2001
Smt
Keruupfeu Respondent
no.4 30.03.1993
Senior Lecturer
on contract March 2005 with
effect from
16.01.2004
regularised as Sr
lecturer Was appointed in
this post on
contract _
4. Draft   seniority   list   as   on   1 st
  July   2006   was   circulated   by   the
authorities   in   which   the   K   was   shown   below   the   appellants.   K’s
2

objection   to   this   seniority   list   was   mainly   on   the   point   that   the
appellants could not be positioned above her as the dates of entry of the
appellants into the cadre of senior lecturer was subsequent to her entry
into   the   said   cadre.   The   appellants   initially   came   to   be   senior   lecturer
on the basis of their officiating promotions on 20 th
 November 2003 with
effect from 14 th
  November 2003 (for A1 and A2) and 20 th
  January 2001
(for  A3   and  A4)   whereas  K’s   regularisation  in   the   post  in  question   was
with effect from 16 th
 January 2004. K’s regular promotion in that cadre
was   before   the   actual   dates   of   regularisation   of   the   appellants   in   the
subject post. The appellants’ regularisation in the said posts was made
in the year 2007, with earlier effect as would be evident from the above­
referred   table.   K’s   representation   was   rejected   and   final   seniority   list
was published on 17 th
 November 2006 in terms of the draft list. As per a
Cabinet   Memorandum   no.   EDS/SCERT­15/2004   (“Memorandum”)
issued   in   the  month  of  March  2005,   regularisation  recommendation   of
K   was   made   with   effect  from   16 th
  January   2004   as   she   had   completed
more   than   ten   years’   service   in   the   department.   This   appears   to   have
had   been   subsequently   approved   and   notified.   We   also   find   from   this
Memorandum   that   she   was   recommended   for   regularisation   on   the
basis of a suitability test. The said Memorandum, inter­alia, carried the
following stipulation:­
“4(2).   There   are   some   regular   lecturers   who   were   given
officiating   promotions   to  the  posts  of   Sr.   Lecturers   subject
3

to  regularization   by  the  DPC.  This  group   of  officers  would
be   senior   to   those   of   contract   appointees   and
deputationists.”
(quoted verbatim from the paperbook)
5. The Nagaland State Council on Educational Training Service Rules,
2003 (“2003 Rules”) was made under the provisions of Article 309 of the
Constitution of India and these Rules became operative from 30 th
  April
2007. Rule 3 thereof reads:­
“3. CONSTITUTION OF SERVICE
The service shall consist of the following persons namely:
(i)     Persons   who,   at   the   commencement   of   these   rules
are holding substantively the posts specified in Schedule­I.
(ii)     Persons   recruited   to   this   service   before   the
commencement of these rules.
(iii)   Persons   recruited   to   this   service   in   accordance   with
provisions of these rules.” 
Schedule II to these Rules carry the requirements pertaining to various
posts within the said service. Eligibility conditions for the post of senior
lecturer appear in Serial 4 thereof. It is recorded in the said Schedule:­
SCHEDULE­II
(See Rule­3)
The Nagaland State Council of Educational Research & Training
Sl. 
No. Designation
of posts Percentage of post(s) to
be filled up Required
Educational
Qualification Remarks
Departmenta
l promotion Direct
recruit
through
NPSC
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Director 100% X M.A./M.Sc./
M.Com with
B.Ed or
equivalent
professional
course not The post of Director will be filled up
by promotion from amongst the 
confirmed Additional Directors who
had rendered not less than 2(two) 
years in the cadre. The selection 
shall on merit cum seniority
4

less than 9
months.
2 Joint
Director 100% X M.A./M.Sc./
M.Com with
B.Ed or
equivalent
professional
course not
less than 9
months. The post of Joint Director will be 
filled up by promotion from 
amongst the confirmed Deputy 
Directors/Senior Academic 
Officers/Principals DIETs who has 
completed 5 years in the cadre on 
the basis of merit cum seniority.
3 Deputy
Director/Sr
. Academic
Officer/
Principal
DIETs 100% X M.A./M.Sc./
M.Com with
B.Ed or
equivalent The post shall be filled up from 
amongst the confirmed Readers 
Vocational Guidance and 
Counseling Officer/Project 
Coordinator/Senior Lecturers 
DIETs who have at least completed 
5 years of continuous service in the
cadre. 
4 Readers/
Sr.
Lecturer/
Research
Officer/
Vocational
Guidance
and
Counsellin
g Officer
Consultant 75% 25% M.A./M.Sc./
M.Com with
B.Ed on the basis of merit cum 
seniority. 
(a) 75% of the post of 
Reader/Senior 
Lecturer/Research Officer/ 
Vocational Guidance and 
Conselling Officer fallen vacant 
in a calendar year shall be filled 
on promotion from amongst the 
serving candidates who have 
rendered continuous service of 
5(five) years in the grade of 
Research Associate/ Assistant 
Planning Officer/ Assistant 
Project Officer/ Lecturers in 
DIETs.
(b) 25% of the vacant post falling
in a calendar year shall be filled 
up by direct recruit through 
NPSC.
5 Research
Associate/
Assistant
Project
Officer/
Assistant
Planning
Officer/
Lecturer
DIET 75% 25% M.A./M.Sc./
M.Com with
B.Ed (a) 75% of vacant post fallen vacant
in a calendar year shall be filled by 
promotion from the serving 
confirmed TRAs/Trainer in Fine 
Arts who has already completed 
atleast 7(seven) years in the grade 
on the basis of merit cum seniority.
(b) 25% of the vacant post shall be 
filled up by open competition 
through NPSC. 
6 Training­
cum­
Research
Assistant/
Trainer in
Fine
Arts/Work
Experience
Teacher X 100% M.A./M.Sc./
M.Com with
B.Ed 100% of the post fallen in a 
calendar year will be filled by open 
competition through NPSC.
5

6. The said Rules however were not operational when regularisation of
K   took   place   in   the   post   of   senior   lecturer.   On   the   other   hand,   the
appellants’   regularisation  as   senior   lecturer  came  after  the   2003   Rules
had   come   into   existence   on   30 th
  April   2007.   Learned   counsel   for   the
appellants   had   argued   that   when   K   joined   as   senior   lecturer,   she   did
not have B.Ed degree. It is not in dispute that before her regularisation,
she   had  obtained  the   B.Ed.   degree.  That  factor,  in   any   event,   is  not  of
much   relevance   so   far   as   the   present   proceeding   is   concerned   as
nothing   has   been   shown   to   us   to   demonstrate   that   she   had   any
eligibility   deficiency   on   account   of   not   having   B.Ed.   degree   at   the   time
she was inducted in the post of senior lecturer on contractual basis. In
any event, her eligibility to be a senior lecturer is not directly in issue in
this appeal. 
7. Consistent stand of the Departmental Promotion Committee (“DPC”)
from   the   year   2007   has   been   that   the   seniority   position   of   the
appellants   ought   to   be   computed   taking   into   account   the   period   they
were   officiating   in   the   posts   of   senior   lecturer,   which   were   prior   to   the
date   of   regularisation   of   K   in   the   same   post.   In   support   of   this
argument, clause 4.2 of the Memorandum referred to in the earlier part
of this judgment has been relied on by the appellants as also the State.
This  was  also the  view of  the DPC  and  was  confirmed  in their  meeting
held on 2 nd
 November 2015. There are authorities which calls for limited
6

interference   by   judicial   review   with   regard   to   recommendations   of   the
DPC. This has been held so by this Court in the cases of   Union Public
Service Commission vs. L.P. Tiwari and Others   [(2006) 12 SCC 317]
and   Union   of   India   &   Another   vs.   S.K.   Goel   and   Others   [(2007)   14
SCC   641].     But   the   principle   of   non­interference   is   not   absolute.     In
exceptional   cases,   judicial   intervention   becomes   inevitable,   as   held   in
the   case   of   Badrinath   vs.   Government   of   Tamil   Nadu   and   Others
[(2000) 8 SCC 395].
8. The   point  of   taking   off,   so   far   as   the   proceedings   giving   rise   to   this
appeal is concerned, is two Writ Petitions filed by K in the Gauhati High
Court. These were registered as W.P (C) No. 169 (K) of 2016 and W.P (C)
No.   231(K)   of   2015.   We   are   avoiding   reference   to   rounds   of   litigations
earlier  as  those  cases   do  not have  direct bearing  on  the  dispute  which
we   are   to   adjudicate   on   in   this   appeal.   In   these   Writ   Petitions,   K   had
challenged the DPC proceedings and she also prayed for reconvening of
DPC   for   the   purpose   of   reconsidering   the   recommendation   for
regularisation of the four appellants in terms of the 2003 Rules. K had
also assailed the promotion of the four appellants in the posts of senior
lecturer. Her main contention was that their ad­hoc period in the feeder
cadre could not be counted for the purpose of eligibility for promotions. 
9. This   was   the   third   round   of   litigations   touching   upon   the   same
controversy.   The first set was a writ petition filed by K, being W.P. (C)
7

No.173(K)   of   2007.   This   writ   petition   was   dismissed   on   technical
ground.   It   appears   that   another   Writ   petition   [W.P.   (C)   No.284(K)   of
2007]   was   also   instituted   by   K   questioning   regularisation   of   the
appellants   as   senior   lecturer.   The   second   writ   petition   was   also
dismissed.   K   had   carried   both   the   orders   of   dismissal   to   the   Appellate
Bench.   K,   however,   was   partially   successful   in   the   second   round   of
litigation   initiated   by   writ   petition   registered   as   W.P   (C)   No.   126(K)   of
2014.   In   this   writ   petition,   she   had   asked   for   invalidation   of   the
recommendation of the DPC in their meeting held on 3 rd
 March 2014. In
this meeting, the DPC had reaffirmed their recommendation made on 4 th
October   2007  seeking   to   regularise  the   service  of  the   appellants   in  the
posts  of  senior  lecturer  from  different dates  prior   to  the  date  on  which
service of K was regularised in the same post. That was accepted by the
State   Government.   The   High   Court   essentially   remanded   the   matter   to
the   DPC   by   setting   aside   their   order   holding   that   the   DPC
recommendation   did   not   reflect   consideration   of   the   2003   Rules.
Following   the   direction   contained   in   the   aforesaid   judgment,   a   fresh
DPC meeting was held on 2 nd
 November 2015 to which we have already
referred.   This   meeting   was   held   mainly   to   review   the   decisions   of   the
DPC  taken  in  their  meetings  on  4 th
  October   2007  and  3 rd
  March  2014,
which   were   set   aside   by   the   High   Court.   But   the   DPC   essentially
retained   their   earlier   decision   concerning   seniority   list   giving   its   own
explanation of there being compliance of the 2003 Rules. 
8

10.   In the appeals arising out of W.P. (C) No. 173(K) of 2007 and W.P.
(C)   No.   284   (K)   of   2007,   a   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   in   a
common judgment delivered on 14 th
 September 2012, inter­alia, held:­
“20. We   have   considered   the   reason   as   assigned   by   the
learned Single Judge but unfortunately we cannot agree to
such   proposition   of   law.   It   is   well   settled   that   the
recommendation of the D.P.C. is not binding upon even on
the appointing authority. It is merely recommendation and
the   appointing   authority   has   ot   examine   the
recommendation   whether   those   were   appropriate   or   not.
The   recommendation   is   an   opinion   of   the   expert   for
consideration   of   the   appointing   authority.   The   appointing
authority thought it appropriate to reconvene the D.P.C. for
arriving   at   a   decision.   It  appears  from   the   D.P.C.   minutes
that   there   was   no   consideration   of   the   Nagaland   State
Council   of   Educational   Research   and   Training   Services
Rules as was given effect form 30.04.2007 and hence the
D.P.C.   in   all   the   cases   made   recommendation   without
relevant   consideration   of   the   said   rules,   and   their
consequences for far regularization of the Sr. Lecturer was
concerned   and   treaded   a   wrong   premise.   The   D.P.C.   did
not   look   into   the   matter   whether   the   private   respondents
have completed the required continuous qualifying service
of 5 years in the feeder grade or not. Apart that, the law is
well settled that the executive is well within its jurisdiction
to   reconvene   to   D.P.C.   but   while   operating   any
regularization   retrospectively   it   has   to   take   care   that   no
prejudice is caused to the incumbent already in the cadre.
Moreover,   being   in   the   grade   on   regular   appointment.
Unless  the   qualifying   service   as   prescribed   is  complete   in
the grade, there cannot by any lawful consideration. 
21. Be   that   as   it   may   in   this   case,   the   question   that   has
been   taken   for   consideration   by   this   Court   is   confined   to
whether  the State­respondents  No.  1  and  2  have acted in
accordance   with   the   provision   of   law   while   accepting   the
recommendation   of   the   D.P.C.   The   answer   is   bound   to   in
the   negative.   The   relevant   provision   as   to   the   qualifying
service   as   appearing   in   the   Nagaland   State   Council   of
Educational   Research   and   Training   Services   Rules,   2003,
as  given effect from 30.04.2007, was not at all considered
by   the   D.P.C.   while   making   recommendations   for
regularization   in   the   post  of  Sr.   Lecture   and  as   such   both
the   recommendations   of   the   D.P.C.   as   well   as   the
notification,   consequent   thereupon,   dated   08.11.2007
(Annexure­C   to   the   Affidavit   in   opposition   filed   by   the
respondent No. 1.) stand quashed.
9

22.  This   Court   would   not   interfere   with   that   part   of   the
notification   whereby   the   private   respondents   have   been
appointed   in   the   cadre   of   Lecturer.   This   order   has   to   be
confined   for   the   cadre   for   the   Sr.   Lecturer   only.   As
consequential   thereof,   the   respondents   No.   1   and   2   are
directed   to   take   immediate   steps   for   reconvening   of   the
D.P.C.   for   purpose   of   fresh   recommendation   for
regularization of the private respondents in the post of Sr.
Lecturer   on   strict   observance   of   the   rules:   as   provided   in
the   schedule   appended   to   the   said   Rules,   2003   (effective
from   30.04.2007)   and   thereafter   to   issue   the   appropriate
order of promotion in the post of the Sr. Lecturer.
23. As corollary to this, the impugned seniority list is also
struck   down.   The   seniority   position   can   only   be   settled
after the reconvening of the D.P.C. for promotion to the post
of   Sr.   Lecturer   in   terms   of   the   provisions   of   the   Nagaland
State   Council   of   Educational   Research   and   Training
Services Rules, 2003.
24.  It is made clear that the private respondents who are
now occupying the post of Principal of DIETs on officiating
basis   would   be   allowed   to   continue   in   their   positions   but
that   shall   remain   subject   to   the   outcome   of   the
recommendation   of   the   D.P.C.   and   the   consequential
orders of promotion as would be made by the respondents
No. 1 and 2.”
(quoted verbatim from the 
paperbook)
  11. In   the   two   writ   petitions   registered   as   W.P.(C)   No.   231   (K)   of
2015   and   W.P.   (C)   169   (K)   of   2016,   K   had   sought   to   quash   the   fresh
DPC  recommendations  coming  from  the  meeting  held  on  2 nd
  November
2015.   The   earlier   seniority   position   of   K   was   retained   by   the   DPC   in
their   recommendation  made   in  this   meeting.   The  Single  Judge  allowed
the   writ   petitions   against   which   the   appellants   appealed   before   the
Division Bench. The Division Bench dismissed the appeals, holding:­
“34.   It   is   reiterated,   at   the   cost   of   repetition,   that   the
Division   Bench   had,   in   clear   terms,   directed   the   State
respondent   nos.   1   and   2   to   take   immediate   steps   for
reconvening   of   the   DPC   for   the   purpose   of   fresh
recommendation for regularisation of the appellants in the
10

post of Senior Lecturer in strict observance of the rules, as
provided   in   the   Schedule   appended   to   the   NSCERT,
Service   Rules,   2003,   and   thereafter,   to   issue   appropriate
order   of   promotion   in   the   post   of   Senior   Lecturer.   After
noticing the provisions in the NSCERT Service Rules, 2003,
the   Division   Bench   had   observed   that   continuous
qualifying   service   of   5   (five)   years   in   the   feeder   grade   of
Lecturer   is   an   essential   requirement   for   the   purpose   of
promotion   to   the   post   of   Senior   Lecturer.   It   was   in   that
context   the   Division   Bench   had   observed   that   the   DPC
when  it  held its meeting  on  04.10.2007,   did not take into
consideration the NSCERT Service Rules, 2003 which had
come   into   effect   in   the   meantime   from   30.04.2007,   as
consideration   of   the   said   Rules   was   relevant   so   far   as
regularisation   of   the   appellants   in   the   cadre   of   Senior
Lecturer.   The   Division   Bench   had   further   observed   that
while   operating   any   regularization   retrospectively,   care
has   to   be   taken   that   no   prejudice   is   caused   to   the
incumbent   already   in   the   cadre.   Though   the   Division
Bench   had   not   indicated   in   express   terms   about   the
incumbent   stated   to   be   already   in   the   cadre   but   it   had
impliedly referred to the respondent no.4 as the incumbent
already   in   the   cadre   and   directed   the   State   respondents
not   to   cause   any   prejudice   to   the   said   incumbent.   As
already   noted   above,   the   Division   Bench   had   considered
the   status   of   the   respondent   no.   4   in   the   post   of   Senior
Lecturer and did not observe any irregularity in the matter
of   regularisation   of   service   of   the   respondent   no.   4   in   the
post  of  Senior  Lecturer  w.e.f.  16.01.2004.  In  view  of such
settled   position,   it   is   no   longer   open   for   the   appellants   to
attempt   any   other   interpretation.   The   said   position   had
been   reiterated   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   in   the
judgment and order dated 03.08.2015 when the DPC held
on   03.03.2014   reiterated   its   earlier   decision   taken   in   the
DPC meeting held on 04.10.2007, by setting aside the said
Minutes   dated   03.03.2014.   The   said   position   was
accepted   by   the   present   appellants   and   the   State
respondents   as   they   had   never   assailed   the   same.   The
contention raised by the present appellants and the State
respondents   to   the   effect   that   the   NSCERT   Service   Rules,
2003   were   not   in   force   in   the   year   2007   when   the
promotions  were  given   to  the  appellants,   was  negated  by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 126(K)/2014. The
learned   Single   Judge   in   its   judgment   and   order   dated
03.08.2015, had set aside the impugned recommendation
of the DPC dated 03.03.2014 with the direction to hold the
DPC   afresh   in   accordance   with   the   direction   given   by   the
Division Bench on 14.09.2012.
35. The contention raised in support of the decisions taken
in   the   meeting   of   the   DPC   held   on   02.11.2015   is   not
11

acceptable   in   view   of   the   authoritative   pronouncement   of
the Division Bench in its order dated 14.09.2012. The DPC
cannot overrule what had been pronounced by the Division
Bench and reiterated by the Single Judge of this Court, as
mentioned   above,   and   the   DPC   cannot   re­interpret   the
position what has already been settled. Thus, the learned
Single   Judge   after   due   consideration   of   the   matter   in   its
entirety, is absolutely justified in W.P. (C) No. 231(K)/2015
in   setting   aside   the   proceedings   of   the   DPC   held   on
02.11.2015   by   holding   that   the   same   were   in   clear
infraction   of   the   judgment   and   order   dated   l4.09.2012
passed in W.A. No. 20(K)/2011 and W.A. No. 21(K)/2011,
as has been quoted above.”
(quoted verbatim from the paperbook)
12. The   facts   which   emerge   from   the   sets   of   events   determining
seniority positions of the appellants and K in the subject posts are that
at the time of regularisation of K, the 2003 Rules was not in existence.
So far as the appellants are concerned, their regularisation in the posts
in   which   they   were   officiating   was   effected   on   8 th
  November   2007.   By
that time the 2003 Rules had become operational. Once the said Rules
became   operational,   the   requirement   of   five   year   service   in   the   feeder
grade   also   become   applicable   to   be   eligible   for   promotion   in   the   next
higher   grade.   Our   attention   had   been   drawn   to   Clause   4.2   of   the
Memorandum issued in the month of March 2005 through which K was
regularised   in   the   post   of   senior   lecturer   to   contend   that   K   could   not
object   to   the   appellants   being   made   senior.     We   shall   deal   with   this
aspect  of  the  appellants’   case   in  the   next  paragraph  of  this   Judgment.
The general principle of service jurisprudence is  that the time spent in
the immediate superior grade on stop­gap or ad­hoc basis ought not to
12

be   computed   for   determining   the   length   of   service   of   an   incumbent   in
that cadre. This is of course, subject to any contrary provision made in
the   applicable   Rules   itself.   But   no   such   contrary   provision   has   been
shown   to   us   at   the   time   of   hearing   of   this   appeal   on   behalf   of   the
appellants  or   the  State.  Thus,   computation   of   the  appellants’   period  of
service   in   the   feeder   grade   can   take   place   only   from   the   date   of   their
regular   appointment   in   that   cadre.   This   view   has   been   taken   by   the
Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of   Direct Recruit Class II
Engineering Officers’ Association vs. State of Maharashtra & Others
[(1990)   2   SCC   715],   Swapan   Kumar   Pal   and   Others   vs.   Samitabhar
Chakraborty and Others   [(2001) 5 SCC 581],   State of Rajasthan and
Others   vs.   Jagdish  Narain  Chaturvedi   [(2009)   12   SCC   49],   Amarjeet
Singh and Others vs. Devi Ratan and Others  [(2010) 1 SCC 417], and
Malook   Singh   and   Others   vs.   State   of   Punjab   and   Others   [(2021)
SCC OnLine SC 876]. 
13. At   the   time   the   appellants   were   regularised   with   retrospective
effect,   the  2003  Rules   had  come   into   existence.   Thus,  the   requirement
of   the   Schedule   to   the   said   Rules   framed   under   Article   309   of   the
Constitution  of  India  could  not be  overridden  by  a  clause  contained  in
the   Memorandum   promoting   K.   On   the   other   hand,   the   2003   Rules
ought to supersede any contrary provision that may be contained in an
earlier   legal   instrument.   The   appellants   cannot   claim   any   vested   legal
13

right   on   the   basis   of   certain   conditions   contained   in   K’s   promotional
recommendation. 
14. The   appellants   had   entered   the   service   as   lecturer   on
contractual   basis   in   the   year   1992­93   around   the   same   time   K   had
joined   as   senior   lecturer,   also   on   contract   basis.   For   the   purpose   of
determining   the   length   of   service   in   the   feeder   posts   as   contained   in
Schedule   II   of   the   2003   Rules,   the   time   spent   on   contractual   basis
cannot   be   factored   in.   If   that   yardstick   is   applied,   then   K’s   case   for
seniority   in   the   grade   of   senior   lecturer   will   have   to   be   computed   from
the   year   1993   only.   Even   if   we   proceed   on   the   basis   that   the
retrospective  effect given  to regularisation  of the appellants in  the post
of   lecturer   is   valid,   then   also,   15 th
  January   2001   becomes   the   starting
point for calculating five years of service length in the feeder cadre. They
were given promotion on officiating basis as senior lecturers with effect
from 14 th
 November 2003 (for A1 and A2) and 20 th
 January 2001 (for A3
and   A4).   Thus,   the   requisite   five   year   period   could   not   have   been
completed by any of them if the retroactivity of their regularisation order
in   the   post   of   senior   lecturer   is   to   be   accepted.   The   period   spent   in   a
promotional post on officiating basis cannot be permitted to be factored
in for calculating length of service in a particular post. Unless the Rules
otherwise   provide,   officiation   in   a   particular   post   cannot   encadre   the
incumbent in that post. We have already referred to different authorities
14

laying down this proposition of law earlier in this judgment. Birth in the
cadre   takes   place   only   upon   regularisation   in   a   grade   and   there   is   no
provision   in   the   2003   Rules   which   prescribes   encadering   a   person   in
the   post   of   senior   lecturer   during   the   period   such   person   officiates   in
the   said   post.   So   far   as   length   of   service   in   feeder   post   is   concerned,
that   also   has   to   exclude   the   contractual   period   during   which   the
appellants served as lecturers, once we apply this principle. 
15. The   appellants   had  no   doubt  completed   three   years   of   service
in   the   feeder   grade   on   operationalisation   of   2003   Rules   on   30 th
  April
2007.  But so far, the said Rules seek to give them regularisation in the
cadre   of   senior   lecturer   with   effect   from   2003   and   2001   respectively,
their service in the feeder grade do not meet the required stipulation of
five year period. Judgment of a Coordinate Bench in the case of   Girish
Kumar   vs.   State   of   Maharashtra   and   Others   [(2019)   6   SCC   647],
construed the term ‘continuous service’ in relation to the specific rules
this Court was dealing with in that case. So far as the present appeal is
concerned,   the  ratio   of   this  judgment  would   not  be  applicable   because
the   appellants   here   did   not   fulfil   the   eligibility   requirement   for   being
promoted to the post of senior lecturer. If retroactivity of order is given
effect   to   for   calculating   the   officiating   period,   as   we   have   already
observed, time spent as officiating senior lecturer could not be deemed
to   be   the   dates   of   their   birth   in   the   cadre   of   senior   lecturer.   In   Girish
15

Kumar   (supra), it has also been held that such interpretation shall not
be applicable while considering eligibility criteria. In the present appeal,
one   of   the   eligibility   criterion   is   five   years   continuous   service   in   the
feeder post. We cannot ignore this factor and proceed on the basis as if
the   term   continuous   service   is   being   construed   only   for   determining
inter­se   seniority   in   the   promotional   post.   We   are   testing   here   if   the
appellants’   entry   in   the   promotional   cadre   was   as   per   the   eligibility
criteria   or   not.   In   our   opinion,   it   was   not.   To   hold   otherwise   would
require   entire   stretch   of   K’s   service   in   the   post   of   senior   lecturer   since
1993   to   be   taken   into   account   for   determining   the   inter­se   seniority
among the appellants and K. 
16. For   these   reasons   we   do   not   wish   to   interfere   with   the
judgment   under   appeal.     The   authorities   to   take   steps   on   the   basis   of
seniority positions of the appellants and the respondent no. 4 in terms
of this judgment. The appeal is dismissed. 
17.   Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
18. There shall be no order as to costs.  
.…………………….…………J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI)
……………………….…….J.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 11 2022.
16