Statutory Rules Override Executive Circulars—Promotion Cannot Be Claimed from Date of Initial Appointment Across Local Bodies: MP High Court Declares Earlier Ruling Per Incuriam

“A plaint cannot rewrite the rulebook—seniority for absorbed teachers must flow from the date of absorption, not from a prior posting under a different local body.” — Justice Vivek Jain. Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered a decisive ruling in Smt. Chetna Patle v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, clarifying that under Rule 17(3) of the MP State Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018, seniority of a teacher absorbed into a new local body must be counted only from the date of such absorption, not from the initial appointment under a different local authority.

The case concerned Chetna Patle, who was initially appointed as a Samvida Shala Shikshak under the Janpad Panchayat in 2003, and later absorbed into the Municipal Council, Seoni, in 2012. Initially granted seniority from her 2003 appointment, her position was later revised and downgraded to reflect seniority only from 2012. She also sought enforcement of a promotion order based on her original seniority count.

The Court dismissed her plea, upholding the revised seniority list and holding that promotion benefits must be based on legally valid seniority, not erroneous calculations.

“Rule 17(3) Leaves No Room for Doubt—Seniority Begins at New Local Body”

Justice Vivek Jain anchored the decision firmly in statutory language, holding:

"Rule 17(3) categorically provides that seniority of teachers of a local body who have been absorbed in another local body shall be fixed from the date of their joining in the concerned new local body."

This meant that once Patle moved from a Panchayat to a Municipal Council, her seniority reset to 2012, the date of her absorption into the new entity.

The Court further observed that the 2012 absorption order (Annexure P-3) explicitly placed her at the bottom of the seniority list within the new local body. Since that condition had never been challenged, it became binding.

"Clause 6 of the absorption order clearly stated that her seniority would be at the bottom among the teachers in the Municipal Council. That order stands, unchallenged and effective."

Earlier Ruling Declared Per Incuriam for Ignoring Binding Rules

A key element in the case was the petitioner’s reliance on an earlier judgment in W.P. No. 1450/2024, which had allowed a similarly placed teacher to retain seniority from her initial appointment. However, Justice Jain found that the coordinate bench in that case failed to consider Rule 17(3) and therefore held:

"The judgment in W.P. No. 1450/2024 is per incuriam—having been rendered without taking into account a binding statutory provision, namely Rule 17(3) of the 2018 Rules."

Citing the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench rulings in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Court reaffirmed that:

"A decision that overlooks a binding legal provision is not a precedent. It loses its authority beyond the case it decided."

Thus, the Court declined to follow the earlier judgment and reasserted the supremacy of statutory rules over any administrative guidelines or even mistaken court rulings.

“You Can’t Carry Your Seniority Across Administrative Borders” — Local Bodies Are Distinct Legal Entities

Justice Jain underlined the distinct legal identity of local bodies under Rule 2(l) of the 2018 Rules:

"‘Local body’ means District Panchayat or Urban Local Body such as a Municipal Council or Corporation. Moving from one to another is not a mere transfer — it’s a shift of cadre and legal jurisdiction."

The Court emphasized that inter-local body absorption—even when facilitated by government policy—breaks the continuity for purposes of seniority related to promotion.

"The petitioner’s migration from Janpad Panchayat to Municipal Council was a legal movement between distinct cadres. As per Rule 17(3), her seniority must be counted from the date of joining the new cadre in 2012."

Promotion Based on Erroneous Seniority Cannot Be Sustained

The petitioner had also sought enforcement of a promotion order dated 17.08.2024, which had been withheld following the revision of the seniority list. The Court dismissed this plea as well:

"A promotion order based on an incorrect seniority list cannot be enforced. Any such advancement would be ultra vires of the statutory framework."

Prior Service to Be Counted for Other Benefits—But Not Seniority for Promotion

While denying the petitioner’s plea for seniority and promotion, the Court offered a measured clarification:

"This judgment is confined to inter-se seniority for promotion. The petitioner’s prior service from 2003 to 2012 shall count for all other benefits, including pay fixation, increments, pension, and time-bound promotions."

Thus, while promotion-related seniority resets upon absorption, financial and tenure-based benefits continue seamlessly.

 “Seniority Is a Matter of Statute, Not Sentiment”

In a well-reasoned and precedent-backed decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirmed the binding force of statutory rules in service jurisprudence. Justice Vivek Jain concluded:

"Seniority must flow from statute—not sympathy, not administrative preference, and not mistaken precedent. Rule 17(3) is decisive, and courts must give it full effect."

The petition was dismissed, and the revised seniority from 2012 upheld as per the law.

Date of Decision: 01 July 2025