'Promotion Under Seniority-Cum-Merit Must Be Based On Seniority In Cadre, Not Date Of Initial Appointment': Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that where promotions are governed by the principle of “seniority-cum-merit”, seniority must be reckoned in the feeder cadre and not based on the date of initial appointment to service. The Court observed that once an employee satisfies the minimum eligibility and merit requirements prescribed for the promotional post, seniority in the immediate lower cadre becomes determinative, and the employer cannot revert to the date of entry into service to alter the promotional hierarchy.
A division bench of Justices R.I. Chagla and Advait M. Sethna was hearing a writ petition filed by Executive Engineers of the Pune Municipal Corporation challenging the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) denying them promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. The petitioners contended that a final seniority list of Executive Engineers had been published on 11 September 2024, in which they were shown as senior to the private respondents. Despite this, the DPC decided to consider promotions by reckoning seniority from the date of initial appointment in service, relying on earlier Government communications and a cut-off date of 25 May 2004, thereby superseding the petitioners.
The Court examined the Pune Municipal Corporation Service Rules, 2014, which mandate that appointments by promotion shall be made on the principle of seniority-cum-merit. It held that this principle requires first assessing whether the candidate possesses the minimum merit and eligibility for the promotional post, and thereafter granting promotion based on seniority in the feeder cadre. The Bench noted that neither the Service Rules nor the applicable Government Resolution of 1 August 2019 permitted seniority to be determined based on the initial date of joining service for promotions to the post of Superintending Engineer.
“… the date of joining/initial entry, overlooking the seniority position in the feeder cadre to the promotional post ought not to be the criterion for promotions, including to the post of Superintending Engineer,” the Court observed,
The High Court rejected the Corporation's reliance on Government letters and subsequent resolutions to justify deviation from the final seniority list, observing that executive communications cannot override statutory service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
The Court further held that the Government Resolution dated 7 May 2021, relied upon by the Corporation, applied only to reserved category candidates who had availed reservation in promotion and had no application to open category employees like the petitioners. The Court also found fault with the impugned order of the DPC for being cryptic and non-reasoned, and for failing to comply with earlier directions of the High Court requiring a detailed consideration of the petitioners' representations.
Accordingly, the Bombay High Court quashed the impugned decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the consequential promotion process, and directed that promotions to the post of Superintending Engineer be considered strictly based on the Final Seniority List dated 11 September 2024.
Case Title: Bipin Vasant Shinde & Ors. v. Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO. 17202 OF 2025]