#seniority-cum-merit

Karnataka High Court mandates that promotions under the 75% seniority-cum-merit quota must be exhausted before filling vacancies through compassionate appointments, reinforcing compliance with service regulations. This ruling protects the rights of existing employees and sets a precedent for prioritizing merit-based promotions in public employment.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a promotion order that bypassed a senior officer in favor of juniors, holding that the Departmental Promotion Committee violated the seniority cum merit principle enshrined under Articles 14 and 16. The ruling mandates a fresh DPC review with retrospective effect, ensuring that procedural fairness and constitutional equality govern public employment promotions.

CAT Allahabad rules that denial of promotion despite higher marks and an unfilled vacancy violates principles of equality in employment. The tribunal directs notional promotion with retrospective benefits, setting a precedent for service jurisprudence where administrative discretion cannot override merit-based entitlements.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that even under seniority-cum-merit promotion rules, an employee undergoing a minor disciplinary penalty-such as stoppage of increment-cannot be promoted until the punishment is fully served. This reinforces that administrative discipline takes precedence over seniority-based entitlements in public service, affecting thousands of state employees governed by similar service rules.