Employees selected under the same process maintain seniority regardless of appointment delays, and delays not attributable to them cannot deprive them of benefits.

JUDGMENT :

MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

The issue involved in these petitions is as to whether the employees, who have been selected under the same selection process but were appointed at different times can claim the seniority according to the select list and can claim as appointed on the date, the first appointment was made, irrespective of the delay in making the appointments.

2. The issue arises in the backdrop of following factual scenario:

The respondents i.e. the Department of Indian Postal Service-respondent no. 2 to 4 published an advertisement for recruitment to 1701 posts of postman-mail guard (PM-MG) and 730 posts of multi tasking staff (MTS). Along with several aspirants, the petitioners also appeared at the examination and selection lists were prepared. The petitioners were given appointment after document verification and medical examination.

3. On 25.11.2016, the respondents cancelled the entire selection process on some complaints. Some candidates filed Writ Petition No. 12117/2016 (Prakash Bhagaji Wani and others Vs. Union of India and others) and connected matters. By the judgment and order dated 03.05.2019 the decision dated 25.11.2016 of cancellation of the entire process was struck down. Directions were issued to verify involvement of individual petitioners in the matter of alleged suspicious circumstances, irregularities or malpractices, as was discussed in the judgment. Those who were already appointed, were directed to be reinstated and were entitled to have 50% of back wages and those who were still to be appointed were directed to be considered and were subsequently appointed.

4. The decision in the matter of Prakash Bhagaji Wani (supra) was challenged before the Supreme Court but the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

5. Simultaneously, few other candidates put up a similar challenge to the decision regarding cancellation of process by filing Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 805/2016 and connected matters. The tribunal disposed of the original applications in terms of the order passed in the matter of Prakash Bhagaji Wani (supra).

6. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 conducted enquiries into the eligibility of candidates and segregated those, who were not found to have indulged in any malpractice etc. Accordingly, in all 341 candidates were given appointments with 50% back wages, on 27.1.2019, including the petitioners. Even thereafter from time to time few more appointments were given between 10.02.2021 and 25.02.2021.

7. Subsequently, respondent nos. 2 to 4 published an advertisement for limited departmental competitive examination (LDC) for recruitment to the cadre of Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants in postal divisions and units (including postal store depot) RMS and MNS for departmental quota of vacancy for the year 2021, on 13.09.2021. By moving an application on 04.10.2021, the petitioners sought permission to participate in the departmental examination. However, by the impugned communication dated 08.10.2021 the request for regularization with effect from 2016 was turned down and even they were refused permission to participate. A list of eligible candidates, who could appear for the limited departmental examination was published on 20.10.2021. Finding that their names were not appearing in the list, the petitions have been filed.

8. Ms. Talekar, the learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that there was no fault on the part of the petitioners for their delayed appointments. It is pursuant to some malpractices that the selection process was cancelled. This Court had quashed and set aside the cancellation and had directed individual cases to be examined and had given directions for the appointments of the untainted candidates like the petitioners. Accordingly, the exercise was undertaken. Appointment orders were issued and as directed by this Court even 50% of the arrears were paid. She would, therefore, submit that since the petitioners were no