The Bombay High Court has held that when service rules prescribe the principle of ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’ for promotion, then seniority must be determined based on the position in the final seniority list of the immediate lower/feeder cadre, provided the candidate meets the minimum eligibility and merit criteria. The Court pointed out that the final seniority list that has been settled and has remained in existence for a considerable period should not be disturbed, as it crystallizes the rights of employees regarding seniority and promotion.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that an administrative authority’s order must be judged by the reasons mentioned within the order itself and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons through affidavits or other documents. Similarly, government letters that are merely departmental opinions cannot be given the status of executive instructions and cannot override statutory service rules.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order passed by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC – Respondent No. 2). Consequently, the Court directed that the proposed draft select list shall not be acted upon by the Respondents, and ordered the DPC and the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC – Respondent No. 1) to implement the Final Seniority List, within two weeks, with all resulting consequences.
Emphasising that the Pune Municipal Corporation Service Rules, 2014 are the applicable statutory rules, the Division Bench comprising Justice R. I. Chagla and Justice Advait M. Sethna observed that Rule 4 of these rules mandates that promotions must be based on the principle of ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’. This would mean that once a candidate fulfils the minimum merit criteria (a B.E. Civil degree and three years of experience as an Executive Engineer), seniority in the feeder cadre becomes the decisive factor for promotion.
The Bench noted that the GR dated 1 August 2019, which complements the 2014 Service Rules, requires that the final seniority list of the feeder cadre from the preceding year be used for promotions. This supported the Petitioner’s claim that the final seniority list should be implemented. The Bench found that the Respondents failed to show any rule mandating that the initial date of joining should be the basis for seniority.
The Bench observed that the impugned order was not a reasoned order as directed by the Court previously, as the point-wise reply to the Petitioners’ representation was sent separately and did not form part of the order itself. The Bench further observed that altering a long-standing and settled seniority list would be unjust and would disturb the crystallized rights of employees.
Briefly, the dispute concerns whether promotions should be governed by the final seniority list of the feeder cadre (Executive Engineer) or by the length of service from the initial date of appointment. The Petitioners, currently employed as Executive Engineers with the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), challenged the denial of their promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil). They were aggrieved by an order issued by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), which superseded a final seniority list that had established their seniority over the private Respondents.
The DPC had decided that promotions should be based on seniority, considering the initial date of joining the service, which favoured the private Respondents. This decision was based on the PMC’s contention that it needed to rectify a mistake in the seniority list, relying on a Government Resolution and government letters.
The Petitioners had previously approached the High Court, which, on 11 November 2025, directed the DPC to pass a reasoned order after considering their representations. The Petitioners contended that the subsequent impugned order was non-speaking and violated the court’s directive.
Appearances:
Advocates Anil Anturkar, Bhushan G. Deshmukh, Aryan M. Deshmukh, Aniket Kanawade, Irvin D’zouza, and Sugandh B. Deshmukh, for the Petitioner
Advocates Abhijit P. Kulkarni, Gourav Shahane, Shreyas R. Zarkar, Surel Shah, and Pratik Deshmukh, for the Respondent
