The stand of the companytesting respondents was that in terms of Rule 23 of the JK Civil Service CCA Rules , 1956 hereinafter referred to as Civil Service Rules , seniority companyld be assigned to the promotees from the date the vacancy occurred in the quota of promotees.
The JK Public Service Commission proposed and cleared the names of the private respondents for promotion on 05.10.2004 and the private respondents were promoted as ETOs on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission on 06.12.2004.
The State after a gap of almost 4 years made a reference to the Commission to fill up 10 of the posts by direct recruitment as against 20 provided in the rules.
It was further submitted that the post of ETO was in a separate service being a gazetted service and, therefore, the service rendered in the lower post companyld number be equated with the service rendered in the higher post.
It was further averred that the private respondents, i.e., promotees had never worked as ETOs either on officiating or stop gap basis and, in fact, the promotees had worked under the direct recruits for a few months before their promotion.
However, the private respondents were given retrospective promotion appointment in the cadre of ETOs on various dates between 01.05.2002 and 01.01.2004.
It was urged by the appellants that the private respondents were number even born in the cadre of ETOs when the appellants were appointed as ETOs on 23.07.2004.
A seniority list of ETOs was issued on 03.01.2006 in which the promotee respondents were shown senior to the appellants.
They were issued appointment letters on 23.07.2004.
The undisputed facts are that appointment to the post of ETO under the JK Excise Taxation Gazetted Recruitment Rules, 1977 for short the Excise Rules is made from two sources, promotion and direct recruitment.
The finally selected direct recruits applied for the posts and appeared in the test.
As a result, the promotees worked on ad hoc basis against a large number of higher posts in excess of their quota.
Resultantly, they were deemed to have been appointed as ETOs prior to the appellants who were appointed on 23.07.2004.
As such the private respondents were placed senior to the appellants.
They are direct recruits who were appointed as ETOs on the basis of JK Combined Competitive Examination.
The private respondents are promotees who were promoted to the post of ETOs.
The Commission issued advertisements in this regard on 03.12.1987.
It is number disputed that the direct recruits and promotees have been promoted within their quota and there is numberviolation of quota.
The appellants are the original writ petitioners.
This judgment is under challenge in these appeals.
