JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

1.Leave Granted.

2.Inter se seniority amongst the deputationists is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 13.9.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein assailing the order of the Tribunal dated 18.9.2003 allowing the original application filed by Visheshwar Dayal Sharma was dismissed. With a view to appreciate the fact of the matter involved herein, we may notice the particulars of the requisite service records amongst others of the Appellant vis-`-vis Respondent No.2 herein : Seniority List Date of promotion as A.S.I. 1. Inder Pal Singh01.01.19872.Mathura Prasad08.02.19883.Vishveshwar Dayal Sharma03.06.1988 (Respondent)4.Kartar Singh29.06.19885.Ramesh Chander28.08.19896.Tara Prasad28.08.19897.Attar Singh Kaushik08.02.1990 (Appellant)8.Joginder Singh30.01.1991

3.Indisputably, Appellant was appointed as a Constable. He was promoted in the year 1980; whereas the respondent was appointed as a Head Constable on or about 28.4.1982. They both were promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector, the respondent on 3.6.1988 and the appellant on 3.2.1990. Both of them were deputed to the Vigilance Department of the Transport Authority, National Capital Territory of Delhi on 12.8.1991.

4.It is not in dispute that both groups of employees were absorbed permanently in the Vigilance Department of the Transport Authority. Seniority of the deputationists upon absorption in the said department is governed by clause 3.1 of Establishment and Administration Rules (see Swamy s Manual). Indisputably, Respondent was deputed prior to the appellant herein, although he was absorbed in the Department, a month prior to him.

5.The High Court while determining the disputes examined the record of the Department. It noticed that in doing so, the relevant Rules, particularly Rule 10.2(ii), in terms whereof Administrative Ministry is required to certify that there was no other deputationist in position appointed earlier to the officer proposed for absorption, was not carried out. In terms of the said Rules, the borrowing department was further required to certify that if there had been any such person and he had not been willing to be considered for appointment on absorption basis. Keeping in view the aforementioned provision as also Clause 3.4.1 of the seniority of the absorbees as contained in Establishment and Administration Rules (Swamy s Manual), the High Court opined that seniority of the parties hereto should be determined on the basis of their respective seniority in the equivalent grade in the parent department which is the feeder grade being the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police.

6.Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, in support of the appeal, inte ralia, would submit:(1) Third respondent being belonging to ministerial cadre was not eligible for appointment in the Vigilance Department under the Rules; (2)The inter se seniority between the parties having been determined by the authorities as far back as on 28.5.1993, the original application filed by the respondent was barred by limitation; and (3) Respondent No.3 could not have continued to remain on deputation despite his repatriation as directed by the order dated 16.12.1991.(4)In the light of the decision of this Court in Sub-Inspector Rooplal & Anr. v. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi & Ors. [(2000) 1 SCC 644], operates in the field, impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

7.Mr. P.P. Khurana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, contended :1.Respondent No.3 indisputably was senior to the Appellant as the entry point of the Appellant and the other respondents was different; 2.whereas the Appellant entered in the services as a Constable of the Transport Department, Respondent No.3 entered in the services as a Head Constable and, indisputably