@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. The appellant filed the writ petition before the High Court of Bombay challenging the preparation of seniority list dated 22nd May, 1979 of Sub-
Inspectors of Prohibition and Excise framed by the Government of Maharashtra. From 1977 onwards the seniority list was prepared on the basis
of the length of continuous officiation in the cadre concerned. The appellant, however, relied upon the rules framed for the Departmental
Examination of Persons appointed to the clerical and Non-Gazetted Executive Services of the Prohibition and Excise Department in the State of
Maharashtra and dated 3rd January, 1962.
2. Under the said Rules every person appointed to the clerical and non-gazetted executive services of the Prohibition and Excise Department was
required to take the prescribed departmental examination under the Rules unless he was exempted from taking the examination. The Rules require
that the candidate must pass the departmental examination within a period of 3 years from the date of his appointment. In case of failure to pass the
examination within the said period, he was liable to be removed from the department. No candidate would be allowed to appear again in the
examination after the expiry of 3 years without special sanction of the Government for any additional chance to appear which would be given only
in very exceptional circumstances. Under Rule 2 a candidate who failed to appear for the first examination held after completing one year of
continuous service was liable to have his increment withheld until he passed the examination or his services were dispensed with. On passing the
examination, however, the withheld increment would become payable. Rule 3 which is relied upon by the appellant is as follows :-
Seniority among the non-gazetted prohibition and Excise Officers and clerks for the purpose of confirmation shall be decided according to the
dates of their passing the departmental examination held after completion of one year''s continuous service in the prohibition and excise
department.
3. The appellant contended that in view of this Rule the seniority for the purpose of promotion should be determined on the basis of the date of
passing the examination. The High Court has negatived this contention relying upon the wording of Rule 3 which says that the seniority determined
on the basis of the date of passing the departmental examination is for the purpose of confirmation only and not for any other purpose. The High
Court has also pointed out the advantages which a candidate will derive by early confirmation if he passes the departmental examination earlier
than his seniors. The High Court after considering the advantages which may flow from early confirmation under Rule 3, has held that Rule 3 will
not effect the seniority on the basis of continuous officiation for the purposes of promotion provided the persons concerned have passed the
departmental examination.
4. This has also been the view taken by the department right from the year 1977 onwards although prior to 1977 the department had interpreted
the rule as contended by the appellant. The seniority lists have been prepared on the basis of continuous officiation right from 1977 onwards. We
do not see any reason to now disturb the seniority lists so prepared. We, therefore, do not see any reason for taking a view different from the view
taken by the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
