Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR
Harish Tandon, Rai Chattopadhyay, JJ.
Poojan Prasad - Petitioner
Vs.
The Union Of India And Others - Respondents
WP.CT No. 40 of 2023
Decided On : 29-09-2023
Seniority Dispute - Sub Inspector (Executive) - Standing Order No. 9048 dated 03.10.2008 - N.R.Parmar (2012) 13 SCC 340, K.Meghachandra Singh (2020) 5 SCC 689 - The court discussed the confirmed seniority list of the Sub Inspector (Executive) and the application of N.R.Parmar and K.Meghachandra Singh in determining seniority. The court held that the decision of the authorities in creating a post for direct recruits and making appointments much prior in time to the date of regularization of the promotees was not infirm. The court also emphasized the importance of the number of vacancies falling in a particular category and the role of rota in determining seniority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub Inspector (Executive) of the Andaman and Nicobar Police, claimed that his seniority was placed below the direct recruits, contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. N.R.Parmar. The dispute arose from the confirmed seniority list and the appointment process for Sub Inspectors.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decision of the authorities in creating a post for direct recruits and making appointments much prior in time to the date of regularization of the promotees was not infirm. The court emphasized the importance of the number of vacancies falling in a particular category and the role of rota in determining seniority.
Issues: The main issue was whether the seniority of the petitioner should be placed below the direct recruits, and the applicability of N.R.Parmar and K.Meghachandra Singh in determining seniority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision of the authorities in creating a post for direct recruits and making appointments much prior in time to the date of regularization of the promotees was not infirm. The court emphasized the importance of the number of vacancies falling in a particular category and the role of rota in determining seniority.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no order as to costs was given.
JUDGMENT :
Harish Tandon, J.
1. The dispute relates to the confirmed seniority list of the Sub Inspector (Executive) of the Andaman and Nicobar Police dated 11.07.2019, where the petitioner is claiming himself to be promote, was placed below the direct recruits. According to the petitioner the decision of the authority as discerned from the said confirmed seniority list is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in case of Union of India and other vs. N.R.Parmar and others reported in (2012) 13 SCC 340.
2. A little background of the dispute raised before us is required to be adumbrated for the purpose of clarity and the decision to be taken herein. Admittedly the petitioner is appointed as constable in the police administration of the islands and promoted to the post of Head Constable and further promoted to the post of the Assistant Sub Inspector in the Executive Branch on the basis of an order dated 16.07.2003.
3. The Director General of Police issued a standing order No. 9048 dated 03.10.2008 formulating the procedure for appointment to the post of a Sub Inspector (Executive) to the effect that the 50% of the vacancy shall be filled up by promotion amongst the serving Assistant Sub Inspector (Executive) on the basis of the seniority-cum-fitness and the remaining 50% vacancy shall be filled up by direct recruitment.
4. It appears from the record that during the relevant year i.e. 2008 the total strength of the Sub Inspector (Executive) cadre in the police administration was 82 out of which 54 posts were filled with promotees and 28 posts with the direct recruits. Subsequently, 17 new posts were created in the year 2008 and were earmarked for direct recruits.
5. The recruitment process was initiated and ultimately the aforesaid 17 posts were filled up during the period from 05.02.2009 to 24.02.2009. One of the criteria provided in the said standing order that the Assistant Sub Inspector (Executive) can be considered for promotion to the post of a Sub Inspector (Executive) provided they completed five years of regular service and also pass upper school course.
6. The petitioner claimed the appointment to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Executive) on the basis of an order dated 16.07.2003 and became eligible for such promotion with effect from 15.07.2008 as he has also passed the upper school course in the meantime. A Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted and a meeting was held on 17.12.2008 wherein after scrutiny of the records and the rule, it was noticed that the sanctioned strength of the Sub Inspector is 107 out of which 82 posts of Sub Inspectors have been filled up and remaining 25 posts are lying vacant either due to new creation, promotion, retirement and deputation.
7. It is further noticed that out of 25 posts, 17 posts were filled up by a direct recruitment which has already been notified and the remaining 08 vacant posts are required to be filled up by promotion on adhoc basis as earlier 17 Assistant Sub Inspectors were promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector on adhoc basis and the senior amongst them will be regularized on seniority basis.
8. Ultimately the said committee found some of the Assistant Sub Inspectors to be eligible for promotion and some were declared unfit. So far as the petitioner is concerned, since he was facing a departmental inquiry, his recommendation was kept in a seal cover. Subsequently by an Order Book No. 3996 dated 02.08.2010, the result of the petitioner was declared and he was promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector (Executive) with effect from 17.12.2008 on adhoc basis against the existing vacancy on which date his junior was promoted as Sub Inspector.
9. It was indicated in the orders giving adhoc promotion to various Assistant Sub Inspectors that their adhoc promotion shall be regularized with effect from the date of occurring the regular vacancies. Simultaneously the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) by way of regularization with effe
Seniority for government employees must be determined from the date of appointment, not the initiation of recruitment, as upheld in relevant Supreme Court decisions.
Seniority – Inter-se seniority between promotees and direct appointees – As far as posts of Income Tax Inspectors are concerned, principle of rota and quota or rotation of quota will apply.
Inter-se seniority for direct recruits/promotees appointed 27.11.2012-18.11.2019, not finalized by 18.11.2019, determined from recruitment process initiation date per 1986/2014 OMs, overriding later ....
Settled seniority cannot be retrospectively disturbed by review DPCs switching to post-based roster; vacancy-based DoPT methodology prevails over unamended RRs; protect pre-2015 promotee seniority an....
Service Laws – Seniority List – OMs made it clear that seniority of direct recruits had to be fixed from the date of appointment and not from date of initiation of recruitment process.
Seniority in government service is determined by the date of appointment, not just the year joined in the cadre, protecting prior established seniority rights.
The court established that seniority in public service appointments must follow prescribed vacancy-wise quotas instead of arbitrary cadre-based practices, ensuring compliance with statutory rules and....
Promotees cannot claim seniority over direct recruits as per established service rules regarding recruitment and seniority determination.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
