Promotion Under Seniority-Cum-Merit Must Follow Feeder-Cadre Seniority, Not Date Of Initial Appointment: Bombay High Court
Isabella Mariam
The Bombay High Court Division Bench of Justice R. I. Chagla and Justice Advait M. Sethna has set aside a municipal Departmental Promotion Committee decision that denied four Executive Engineers consideration for promotion as Superintending Engineers, after the employer treated seniority as flowing from officers’ initial entry into service. The Court held that where promotions proceed on a seniority-cum-merit basis, seniority must be taken from the immediate feeder cadre; once minimum eligibility and merit benchmarks for the promotional post are met, feeder-cadre seniority becomes determinative and the employer cannot revert to the date of first appointment to reshape the promotional hierarchy. It directed the corporation and the committee to implement the final feeder-cadre seniority list and not act on the proposed select list prepared on the alternative basis.
The Petitioners, serving as Executive Engineers (Civil) with the Pune Municipal Corporation, challenged the order dated 11 December 2025 passed by the Departmental Promotion Committee denying them promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil). They sought implementation of the final seniority list dated 11 September 2024, in which they were ranked senior to the private Respondents.
The dispute arose after the DPC, in its meeting dated 2 September 2025, resolved that promotions to the post of Superintending Engineer should be determined on the basis of seniority as on 25 May 2004, reckoned from the date of initial entry into service. The Petitioners contended that the applicable 2014 Service Rules and Government Resolution dated 1 August 2019 required consideration of seniority in the feeder cadre of Executive Engineer, based on the final seniority list of the preceding year.
The Respondent Corporation maintained that an error had occurred in the final seniority list dated 11 September 2024 and relied upon Government letters dated 16 February 2019 and 21 February 2020, as well as the Government Resolution dated 7 May 2021. The controversy centered on whether promotions should be governed by seniority in the feeder cadre or by the date of initial appointment.
The Court examined the 2014 Service Rules and recorded that “the statutory rules contemplate only a degree of B.E (Civil) or its equivalent, with an experience of three years in the feeder post of Executive Engineer (Civil).” It further observed that “the principle to be applied as per the said Rule is that of ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’.”
While interpreting the Government Resolution dated 1 August 2019, the Bench stated that “if the Selection list is for a particular year… the final seniority list as on 1 January [of the preceding year] should be drawn.” It noted that the seniority list dated 11 September 2024 operated with reference to 1 January 2024 and therefore could not be displaced by reverting to 25 May 2004.
On the Respondents’ reliance upon date of joining, the Court recorded that “the Respondents, despite specific query from the Court, have not been able to point out any specific Rule providing that date of joining service should be the basis for seniority qua promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer.” It held that emphasis on initial entry into service was “not in sync with the relevant statutory 2014 Service Rules.”
The Court further held: “… 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,”
Regarding the Government Resolution dated 7 May 2021, the Court observed that it “only applies to those officers/employees who have moved up the ladder in service seniority, taking benefit of the reservation in promotion in terms of the G.R. dated 25 May 2004” and clarified that it “is not applicable to persons belonging to the open category.”
On the nature of the impugned order, the Bench referred to its earlier direction requiring a reasoned order and stated that “a reasoned order should be passed” and that such requirement was “not borne out from a bare perusal of the Impugned Order.” It added that “reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, without the same it becomes lifeless.”
The Court concluded that “we see no reason much less justification to dislodge the final seniority list” and that disturbing crystallized seniority would not be just or fair in the circumstances.
The Court directed that “The Impugned Order dated 11 December 2025 passed by Respondent No.2- DPC is quashed and set aside. The proposed draft select list dated 2 September 2025, shall not be acted upon and/or given effect to by the first and second Respondents.”
“The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to implement the Final Seniority List dated 11 September 2024, in any event not later than in two weeks from the date of uploading of this order, with all consequences arising therefrom. The promotion of Petitioner No.4 shall, however, be subject to the final outcome of the Supreme Court decision in (SLP) No.28306 of 2017. The Petition is made Absolute in the above terms.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Counsel with Mr. Bhushan G. Deshmukh, Mr. Aryan M. Deshmukh, Mr. Aniket Kanawade, Mr. Irvin D’zouza
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni with Mr. Gourav Shahane and Mr. Shreyas R. Zarkar; Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Counsel with Mr. Pratik Deshmukh.
Case Title: Bipin Vasant Shinde & Ors. v. Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: BHC-AS:5536-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 17202 of 2025
Bench: Justice R. I. Chagla and Justice Advait M. Sethna
