As per case facts, respondents 4-6 were initially appointed as Junior Engineers on a contractual basis, later regularized in 2008, and eventually promoted to Assistant Engineer in 2015. Conversely, the ... petitioners were directly appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer in 2013. The employer then granted notional seniority to respondents 4-6 effective from 2013, which made them senior to the petitioners in the Assistant Engineer cadre. This decision was based on a committee report and a court directive to reconsider their representations regarding promotion and seniority. The petitioners challenged this, arguing that they were directly appointed earlier to the post of Assistant Engineer. The question arose whether retrospective seniority can be granted to employees from a date they were not yet part of the specific cadre, especially when it negatively impacts direct recruits who were validly appointed earlier, and if the governing service rules do not explicitly permit such retrospective application. Finally, the High Court ruled that seniority is determined from the actual date an employee joins a post, and retrospective seniority is generally impermissible unless expressly provided by service rules. Granting notional seniority from a date prior to an employee’s entry into the cadre, thereby making them senior to validly appointed direct recruits, infringes upon established legal principles and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the High Court quashed the order granting notional seniority and the resultant seniority list, directing the employer to issue a fresh seniority list reflecting the petitioners' correct seniority.