2025:CGHC:44133 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1250 of 2022 1 - Smt. Suganti Bai W/o Satyanarayan Aged About 36 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Kendpani, Block Duldula District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhuneshwari Maheshwari D/o Gendram Maheshwari, Aged About 35 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Karangabahla, Block Pathalgaon District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Gauri Shankar Sao, S/o Samundram Sao Aged About 40 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Dom, Block Duldula District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Dinesh Kumar Diwan S/o Nageshwar Singh Aged About 33 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Korna, Block Duldula District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sachin Kumar Mahto S/o Shambhu Ram Mahto, Aged About 34 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Dhouradanda, Block Duldula District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ankija Singh Thakur W/o Gulzar Singh Aged About 34 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Girls High Y School Bagbahar,, Block Duldula Patthalgaon, Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 7 - Vimal Kumar Yadav S/o Arjun Ram Yadav Aged About 35 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Higher Secondary School Chiknipani, Block Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 8 - Smt. Janmuna Ekka W/o Arjun Ekka, Aged About 33 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Karmitikra, Block Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. Page 2 of 15 9 - Sita Yadav W/o Sanjay Mumar Yadav, Aged About 34 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Labhanipara, Block Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 10 - Krishna Kumar Kurrey S/o Ganga Ram Kurrey Aged About 39 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Pradhan Muda Ludeg (Ludeg), Block Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 11 – Preetam Pyare Bande, s/o. J. Bande, Aged about 41 years, Presently working as Assistant Teacher (LB) at Govt. Primary School, Gattibuda, Block Duldula, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 12 - Bishakha Yadav D/o Sudarshan Yadav, Aged About 40 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Bhijpur, Block Duldula, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 13 - Ghanshyam Prasad Gupta S/o Gango Prasad Gupta, Aged About 38 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Tipantoli, Block Duldula, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 14 - Yogesh Kumar Soren S/o Loknath Ram Aged About 36 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Bodokachar, Block Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 15 - Sumanti Kujur W/o Kuldeep Ekka, Aged About 40 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Tipantoli Block Duldul, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 16 - Hemant Kujur S/o Nansai Kujur, Aged About 37 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Manjhipara Block Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 17 - Smt. Shalen Xalxo D/o Oscar Xalxo, Aged About 35 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Mathpahad, Block Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 18 - Dharmendra Kumar Chouhan S/o Puniyarthi Ram Chouhan, Aged About 39 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Rawatpara, Block Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 19 - Lalit Mohan Yadav S/o Madam Ram Yadav Aged About 34 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Lothaamba, Block Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 20 - Santosh Kumar Paikra S/o Bal Sai Paikra, Aged About 36 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Sajapani, Block Duldula, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 21 - Chandra Prakash Kumar S/o Mukund Ram Aged About 46 Years Presetly Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Kendapani, Block Duldula, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Ministry Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Po And Ps Rakhi District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Divisional Joint Director, Education Division Sarguja, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Educatin Officer, Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Monika Thakur, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.08.2025 1. The petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to consider their seniority from the date of initial appointment/joining on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade- III, II & I, and also prayed for the issuance of a direction to prepare the gradation list accordingly. The petitioners have further prayed for promotion after adding the seniority from the initial date of appointment. 2. The State has filed its return in which they have stated that the Government of Chhattisgarh has taken a policy decision on 30.06.2018, absorbing all the Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, II & I with the School Education Department. The relevant clause of the absorption order is extracted below:- “Lakfofy;u dh lsok ’krsZ fuEukuqlkj gSa & 1- lafofy;u fd;s x;s f’k{kd ¼ia-@ua-fu-½ laoxZ Ldwy f’k{kk foHkkx esa f’k{kd ¼,y-ch-½ laoxZ ds uke ls tkus tk;saxsA 2- Ldwy f’k{kk foHkkx varxZr iwoZ l s lapkfyr ’kkykvks a esa tgk¡ bZ&laoxZ ds f’k{kd inLFk gSa] mu ’kkykvksa es inLFk f’k{kd ¼ia-@ua-fu-½ laoxZ] uohu uke f’k{kd bZ ¼,y-ch-½ laoxZ ds rFkk tgk¡ Vh&laoxZ ds f’k{kd inLFk gSa] mu ’kkykvksa es inLFk f’k{kd ¼ia-@ua-fu-½ laoxZ] uohu uke f’k{kd Vh ¼,y-ch-½ laoxZ ds varxZr gksaxs ,oa budk dSMj i`Fkd&i`Fkd gksxkA 3- f’k{kd ¼,y-ch-½ laoxZ dks fnukad 01 tqykbZ 2018 ls 7 osa osru vk;ksx dh jkT; ’kklu }kjk le;&le; ij Lohd`r vuq’kalkvksa ds vuq#i osru ,oa vU; lqfo/kk,a ns; gksxhA 4- f’k{kd ¼,y-ch-½ laoxZ dks ns; leLr ykHk ds fy;s lsok dh x.kuk lafofy;u fnukad 01 tqykbZ 2018 ls dh tk;sxhA 5- fnukad 01 tqykbZ 2018 ds iwoZ dh vof/k ds fy;s fdlh Hkh izdkj ds ,fj;lZ dh ik=rk ugha gksxhA 6- f’k{kd ¼,y-ch-½ laoxZ dks uohu va’knk;h is’ku ;kstuk dh ik=rk gksxhA 7- f’k{kd ¼,y-ch-½ laoxZ dh HkrhZ] inksUufr ,oa lsok fu;e Ldwy f’k{kk foHkkx }kjk i`Fkd ls cuk, tkdj vf/klwfpr fd;s tk;saxsA 8- fdlh Hkh vU; foHkkx ds lsok ,oa HkrhZ fu;eksa esa ;fn bl vkns’k ds varxZr fufeZr fu;eksa ls vlaxr dksbZ fu;e vFkok izko/kku gks] rks os fu;e ;k izko/kku bl vkns’k ds izko/kkuksa dh lhek rd la’kksf/kr ekus tk,xsaA lacaf/kr foHkkx bl vkns’k ds izko/kkuksa ls laxr vuqdwyu vkns’k vius lsok HkrhZ esa ;FkkfLFkfr vfoyac ’kkfey djk,xkA 9- f’k{kd ¼ia-@u-fu-½ laoxZ ds tkjh fu;qfDr vkns’k ds fo#) ;fn fdlh U;k;ky; esa izdj.k fopkjk/khu gS] rks mudk lafofy;u U;k;ky;hu fu.kZ; ds v/;k/khu jgsxkA ;g vkns’k rRdky izHkko’khy gksxkA” 3. The State, with the intention to implement the policy decision of absorption, has further issued an order on 06.07.2018 and also issued a circular on 04.02.2022 fixing the seniority of Shiksha Karmis, who have been transferred from one Block to another Block or one District to another District. Clause 7 of the circular provides that the seniority of the transferred Shiksha Karmis should be counted from their date of joining at the place of transfer. As such, the petitioners are not entitled to get the seniority from their first date of appointment. Clause 7 of the circular dated 04.02.2022 is as under:- “7- ofj"Brk %& f’k{kkdehZ oxZ&03@ lgk;d f’k{kd iapk;r tks orZeku esa lgk;d f’k{kd ,y-ch- ds in ij dk;Zjr~ gSa dk LFkkukarj.k ,d foa-[ka ls nwljs fo-[ka- ;k ,d ftys ls nwljs ftys esa gqvk gks rks LFkkukarfjr fodkl [kaM@ ftys esa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k frfFk ls ofj"Brk fu/kkZfjr dh tkosA ,slh fdlh lgk;d f’k{kd ,y-ch- ds lkFk ftrus ckj gqvk gks gj ckj ofj"Brk dk fu/kkZj.k blh izdkj fd;k tkosA” 4. The relevant clause of the order dated 06.07.2018 is extracted below:- “1@ os f’k{kd ¼ia-@u-fu-½ tks lafofy;u ugha pkgrs gS] muds ifjf’k"V&,d vuqlkj fodYi i= izkIr djuk gksxkA 2@ ftyk f’k{kk vf/kdkjh ls bZ&laoxZ ,o Vh&laoxZ dh ’kkykvksa dh lwph izkIr djuh gksxhA 3@ lgk;d f’k{kd ¼ia-@u-fu-½ dh ofj"Brk lwph ifjf’k"V& nks vuqlkj rS;kj djuh gksxhA 4@ f’k{kd ¼ia-@u-fu-½ dh ofj"Brk lwph ifjf’k"V& rhu vuqlkj rS;kj djuh gksxhA 5@ O;k[;krk ¼ia-@u-fu-½ dh ofj"Brk lwph ifjf’k"V&pkj vuqlkj rS;kj djuh gksxhA 6@ ifjf’k"V nks] rhu ,oa pkj esa of.kZr izk#i vuqlkj ftyk Lrj dh ,dhd`r ofj"Brk lwph eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] ftyk iapk;r }kjk rS;kj dh tk,xhA 7@ lgk;d f’k{kd ¼ia-@u-fu-½ ,o a f’k{kd ¼ia-@u-fu-½ dh ,dhd`r ofj"Brk lwph uksMy vf/kdkjh }kjk ftyk vf/kdkjh dks izsf"kr dh tk,xhA 8@ O;k[;krk ¼ia-@u-fu-½ dh ,dhd`r ofj"Brk lwph uksMy vf/kdkjh }kjk lapkyd] yksd f’k{k.k] NRrhlx<+ dks izsf"kr dh tk,xhA 9@ f’k{kd ¼ia-@u-fu-½ laoxZ d s O;fDr tks LFkkukUrj.k ds QyLo#i vius in ds fy, fu/kkZfjr {ks+= ls i`Fkd vU; {ks= ij ’oSfPNd inkafdr gSa] mudh ofj"Brk dk fu/kkZj.k LFkkukarfjr fudk; esa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh fnukad ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tk,xkA 10@ f’k{kd ¼ia-@u-fu-½ laoxZ varxZr tks f’k{kd lafonk ls fu;fer fd;s x, gSa] ,oa mlh in ij lrr~ dk;Zjr gS mUgs ofj"Brk lwph esa fnukad 01 tqykbZ 2005 ls ofj"Brk nh tk,xhA 11@ ofj"Brk fu/kkZj.k gsrq le;&lkfj.kh ¼ifjf’k"V&ik¡p½ vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tk,A” 5. Learned State counsel would submit that pursuant to the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the State has framed the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion, Rules, 2019 (for short “the Rules, 2019”). According to the Rules, 2019, the procedure for recruitment and promotion has been provided. Some of the Shiksha Karmis assailed the validity of remarks No. 2 & 3 of Entry 18 under Schedule-II of the Rules, 2019, by filing WPS No. 5911/2022 and other connected cases. He would further submit that the Hon’ble Divisional Bench, while dismissing the petitions held in paragraphs 69, 71 to 74, as under:- “69. In WPS No.1275/2022, the petitioners, who are the employees of the School Education Department since their initial date of appointment, are aggrieved with division of promotion between the Teachers of ‘E-Cadre’ and Teachers of ‘E(LB) Cadre’ and further their grievance is with regard to the direction issued by the Divisional Joint Director, Education Division Raipur mentioning that the seniority of absorbed Shiksha Karmis will not be counted from the date of their absorption in the School Education Department. The petitioners are placed in a separate cadre under the Rules of 2019 as Assistant Teacher and Teacher ‘E Cadre’. Absorbed Shiksha Karmis of Panchayat and Urban Administration Department were put in a separate cadre as Teacher (LB). Under Schedule-II of the Rules of 2019 separate quotas have been fixed for promotion of teacher 'E-Cadre' and teacher 'E-LB Cadre'. Pleading of petitioners in this writ petition that seniority of Teachers (E-LB) be counted from the date of their contractual appointment, is misconstrued. Document dated 22.1.2022 (Annexure P-7) mentions that seniority of the teachers working on contract and the teachers working under Shiksha Guarantee Scheme is to be counted from the date of their absorption as Shiksha Karmis. It does not talk about fixing of seniority of absorbed Shiksha Karmis in the School Education Department. The order of absorption of Teachers working in Panchayat Department and Local Bodies clearly mentions that period of service for granting benefit to Teachers (LB) cadre is to be counted from the date of absorption, 1.7.2018. Absorption of Teachers with Panchayat Department and Local Bodies in the School Education Department is a policy decision by the State Government and to protect interest of the employees of all departments after their absorption in the School Education Department, separate cadres have been created providing separate promotional avenues. Petitioners have neither pleaded nor argued the grounds under which the Rules framed by the State Government in exercise of power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution is ultra vires. In view of the above facts and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court that chance of promotion is not the constitutional or legal right, we do not find any merit in WPS No.1275/2022, the same is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. 71. In writ appeals, petitioners/appellants were appointed under the Panchayat and Rural Development Department as Shiksha Karmi Grade- I under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1997 and their services continued to be governed under the Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 53 (2) read with Section 71 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. Lastly, they were governed under the Chhattisgarh Teachers (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and Condition of service) Rules, 2012 and Shiksha Karmi Grade-I were nomenclatured as Lecturer (Panchayat). Their services were absorbed by the policy decision taken by the State Government in the School Education Department vide order dated 30.6.2018 w.e.f. 1.7.2018. The absorption was under the conditions mentioned in the order. One of the conditions in the order of absorption is that for all benefits to the Teachers (LB) cadre, the calculation of period of service will be from the date of absorption i.e. 1.7.2018. Grievance of petitioners/appellants that the respondent authorities have called list of Lecturers for their promotion to the post of Principal who have completed five years of their service on their post and due to requirement of service in feeder cadre of five yeas, they will not be considered for promotion and names would be processed only of the Lecturer E-Cadre. The Order of absorption was not put to challenge by the petitioners and they have accepted all the terms and conditions mentioned in the order of absorption. Promotion of an employee to a higher post is to be considered in accordance with the Rules of 2019, which is not challenged in writ petitions, but they have only sought quashment of letter issued by the authorities calling names of the Lecturers and Head Masters who have completed five years of service on their post for considering their names for promotion. Learned Single Judge taking note of order of absorption, provisions under the Rules of 2019; relying inter alia on decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue in R. Prabha Devi & ors Vs. Government of India, through Secretary Ministry of Personnel & Training, Administrative Reforms & ors, reported in (1988) 2 SCC 233; R.S. Garg v. State of UP, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 430; Ram Saran V. State of Punjab, reported in (1991) 2 SCC 253; as also considering submissions of learned counsel for petitioners therein relying on Rule 12 (2) (c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 had observed thus;- “32. The rule-making authority is competent to frame rules laying down eligibility condition for promotion to a higher post. Similarly, the prescribing of an eligibility condition for entitlement for consideration for promotion is within the competence of the rule-making authority. This eligibility condition has to be fulfilled by the person seeking promotion in higher post in order to be eligible for being considered for promotion. When qualifications for appointment to a post in a particular cadre are prescribed, the same have to be satisfied before a person can be considered for appointment. Seniority in a particular cadre does not entitle a public servant for promotion to a higher post unless he fulfills the eligibility condition prescribed by the relevant rules. A person must be eligible for promotion having regard to the qualifications prescribed for the post before he can be considered for promotion. Seniority will be relevant only amongst persons eligible. Seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility nor it can override it in the matter of promotion to the next higher post. {See R. Prabha Devi (supra).} 33. Reverting to the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid legal position, the argument based on Rule 12(2)(c) of the Rules of 1961 is of no advantage to the learned counsel for the petitioners as it relates W.P.(S)No.4341/2020 and other connected cases to seniority of a transferee as by virtue Rule 12(2)(c) relevant seniority of persons appointed by transfer from one department to another department of the State Government shall be determined in accordance with the order of their selection for transfer and Rule 12(2) (c) deals with one of the contingencies i.e. transfer on deputation to another department and absorption in that department. As such, seniority is not an issue in this batch of writ petitions, therefore, the argument based on Rule 12(2)(c) is not relevant as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in R. Prabha Devi (supra) wherein it was held that a person must be eligible for promotion having regard to the qualifications prescribed for the post before he can be considered for promotion, seniority will be relevant only amongst persons eligible and seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility. It has already been held that the petitioners are ineligible as per S.No.9 of Schedule-IV enacted under Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules of 2019 according to which minimum five years teaching experience on the post of Lecturer (LB) is quite essential being the feeder post for claiming promotion on the post Principal. Admittedly, the petitioners did not havw the said eligibility qualification in terms of five years experience on the post of Lecturer (LB), they are not entitled to be considered for promotion and Rule 12 (2)(c) of the Rules of 1961 would not confer any benefit to the petitioners. No other argument has been pressed into service. 34. In that view of the matter, the decisions of the M.P. High Court in Hemchandra Pandey (Dr.) (supra), Chhogalal (supra), K.M. Mishra's case (supra) and that of the Supreme Court in Deepak Sood's case (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, are also clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present W.P. (S) No.4341/2020 and other connected cases case.” 72. In the case of R. Prabha Devi (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “15. The rule-making authority is competent to frame rules laying down eligibility condition for promotion to a higher post. When such an eligibility condition has been laid down by service rules, it cannot be said that a direct recruit who is senior to the promotees is not required to comply with the eligibility condition and he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher post merely on the basis of his seniority. The amended rule in question has specified a period of eight years' approved service in the grade of Section Officer as a condition of eligibility for being considered for promotion to Grade I post of CSS. This rule is equally applicable to both the direct recruit Section Officers as well as the promotee Section Officers. The submission that a senior Section Officer has a right to be considered for promotion to Grade I post when his juniors who have fulfilled the eligibility condition are being considered for promotion to the higher post, Grade I, is wholly unsustainable. The prescribing of an eligibility condition for entitlement for consideration for promotion is within the competence of the rule-making authority. This eligibility condition has to be fulfilled by the Section Officers including senior direct recruits in order to be eligible for being considered for promotion. When qualifications for appointment to a post in a particular cadre are prescribed, the same have to be satisfied before a person can be considered for appointment. Seniority in a particular cadre does not entitle a public servant for promotion to a higher post unless he fulfills the eligibility condition prescribed by the relevant rules. A person must be eligible for promotion having regard to the qualifications prescribed for the post before he can be considered for promotion. Seniority will be relevant only amongst persons eligible. Seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility nor it can override it in the matter of promotion to the next higher post. The rule in question which prescribes an uniform period of qualified service cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. It has been rightly held by the Tribunal: "When certain length of service in a particular cadre can validly be prescribed and is so prescribed, unless a person possesses that qualification, he cannot be considered eligible for appointment. There is no law which lays down that a senior in service would automatically be eligible for promotion. Seniority by itself does not outweigh experience." 73. In the case of Ram Saran (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus;- “21. If the government employee was on deputation or holding a post in another cadre, the lien shall revive as soon as he ceased to hold the post in another cadre. There is no revival of the lien during the period the employee continues to hold a post in another cadre. Therefore, during the period the suspension is operative, the employee cannot claim that he had been continuing in the post in the parent cadre and gaining experience. When the rule is clear and specific that for the purpose of promotion from the cadre of Superintendents, Assistant, Accountants, Senior Scale Stenographers to the post of Excise and Taxation Officers, the eligibility qualification is "experience of working 'as such' for five years", the employee is not entitled to claim the experience in the ex- cadre as experience of working in the ministerial cadre." 74. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the finding arrived at by learned Single Judge is based on proper appreciation of facts and the rules governing the field. There is no infirmity in the decision of learned Single Judge in respective writ petitions, which are subject matter of writ appeals. Writ appeals being devoid of substance are liable to be and are hereby dismissed.” 6. In the present case, the validity of the absorption order issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh on 30.06.2018 has not been challenged; therefore, the prayer of the petitioners for the grant of seniority from the date of their initial appointment cannot be considered. The petitioners, without any demur or objection with regard to the condition enumerated in the absorption order, have accepted it with open eyes; therefore, they are estopped from challenging the same. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners were not selected, appointed under any process or procedure of hiring by the State Government, and they can never be treated to be Government servants till they were absorbed by the State Government vide order dated 30.06.2018. It is also significant that the petitioners do not have any appointment letters issued by the State. 7. The issue with regard to the grant of seniority on absorption came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrigank Johri & others Vs. Union of India & others1, wherein it has been held in paragraphs 31 to 35 as under:- “31. It is no doubt true that the OM dated 29.5.1986 as modified by OM dated 27.3.2001 did provide for the benefit of the previous service rendered in the cadre. This is in effect also the ratio of the judgment in SI Rooplal case (supra). This would also be inconformity with the normal service jurisprudential view. However, it would be a different position if the absorbing department clearly stipulates a condition of giving willingness to sacrifice the seniority while preserving all other benefits for the absorbee (which are accepted) failing which the option was available to the absorbee to get himself repatriated to the parent department. The terms and conditions are categorical in their wording that the absorbees would be “deemed to be new recruits” and the previous service would be counted for all purposes “except his/her seniority in the cadre”. The appellant accepted this with open eyes and never even 1 (2017) 8 SCC 256 challenged the same. Their representations to give them the benefit of their past seniority was also turned down and thereafter also they did not agitate the matter in any judicial forum. The controversy was thus not alive and it was not open for them to challenge the same after a long lapse of period of time. In fact on the day of filing of the OM, any prayer to set aside the terms and conditions of absorption would have been clearly barred by time under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The appellants sought to rake up the issue only when the seniority list was finalized. This was preceded by the draft seniority list. Whatever may be the dispute of seniority qua other persons, insofar as the appellants were concerned, their seniority was based on the terms and conditions of their absorption. The position of the appellants in the seniority list was thus a sequitur to the terms and conditions of their absorption. We are of the view that it is precisely for this reason, anticipating that their claim would be time barred, that a challenge was laid only to the seniority list without challenging the terms and conditions of absorption though in the grounds, a plea was raised against the terms and conditions of absorption. Unless the terms and conditions of absorption were to be set aside, the seniority list prepared was inconformity with the same. 33. Even otherwise, as noted above, since the appellants accepted the terms and conditions of absorption, they could not plead otherwise. 34. We are in agreement with the submission of the respondents that this issue has been squarely dealt with in Indu Shekhar Singh’s case (supra) where almost identical issues have been dealt with by holding that the State was within its right to impose conditions where the employees had the option to exercise their right of election. The entitlement was not under any rules but under what was called the residuary power. 35. The High Court, in our view, rightly interpreted the Rules extracted aforesaid. The method of recruitment as per Rule 3, has to be specified in Column 5 to 15 of the Schedule, while Rule 5 provides for power of relaxation. Column 11 provides for the method of recruitment - whether by direct recruitment, or by promotion, or by deputation or transfer, and the percentage of the vacancies to be filled by various methods. This may vary from post to post. For the Junior Engineer (Electrical) post, the ratio is mentioned as 83.33 % by direct recruitment and 16.66% by promotion through a departmental competitive examination. The office note regarding the absorption dated 2.11.1998 also refers to the open competitive examination not being held and the consequences thereof, with absorption of persons like the appellants being envisaged to deal with the given situation, but subject to the terms and conditions which were then set out in OM dated 9.11.1999.” 8. In view of the above factual and legal position, the prayer of the petitioners to count their seniority from the initial appointment as Shiksha Karmi till they are absorbed with the School Education Department cannot be considered and deserves to be rejected, and is accordingly rejected. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that the petitioners were transferred from one Panchayat to another, but their services with the earlier Panchayat have not been counted for inter se seniority of the Shiksha Karmis. He would argue that the petitioners may be given the liberty to prefer a representation raising their grievances with regard to counting their seniority on account of transfer from one Panchayat to another Panchayat before the concerned Chief Executive Officer of the Panchayat. This submission is opposed by the State on the count of delay and laches, and would also submit that the rule does not provide them to count their service. 10. Considering the submissions made by the parties, the prayer of the petitioners to count their seniority from their initial appointment till their absorption in pursuance of the policy decision dated 30.06.2018 is rejected. However, the petitioners are at liberty to prefer a representation before the concerned Chief Executive Officer of Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat, where they were transferred, for counting their seniority from their initial appointment to their transferred place for determining inter se seniority between Shiksha Karmis. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The authorities are free to take a decision in accordance with the law without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. 11. With these observations, the writ petition, so far as the claim for seniority from initial appointment is concerned, is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to make a representation regarding their inter se seniority from the initial date of appointment to their transferred place. 12. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judge Nadim