Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1476
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, DEEPA SHARMA, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Ravi Kant Sharma & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) 4168 of 2017
Decided On : 16-05-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. V.S.R. Krishna
For the Respondents: Ms. Pratishtha Vij
Headnote:
Seniority - Administrative Law - [Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi] - [B.S. Bajwa & Another Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (1998) 2 SCC 523, H.S. Venkani & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat 2012(2) AISLJ (SC) 205, Central Provident Fund Commissioner and another Vs. N.Ravindran and others 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 654, Man Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2013) 196 DLT (CN) 48 (DB), Ajay Pandey Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2014 SCC Online Del 3830, Satvir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7272] - The court discussed the settled legal position that questions of seniority should not be re-opened after a lapse of considerable period, and the application of the rota quota principle in fixing seniority between promotees under different channels. The court also examined the applicability of the Department of Personnel & Training O.M. dated 03.07.1986 and the nature of promotions through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) as a mode of promotion.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to challenge the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal quashing the redrawn seniority list and directing the fixation of seniority of respondents 1 to 3 in accordance with the seniority lists of 11.02.2004 and 15.02.2011. The petitioners-AIIMS had circulated provisional seniority lists in the cadre of Private Secretaries in 2004 and 2011, showing respondent Nos.1 to 3 senior to respondent Nos. 4 to 8. The petitioners subsequently revised the seniority list in 2015, resulting in respondent Nos.1 to 3 being shown junior to respondent Nos. 4 to 8.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the seniority lists circulated in 2004 and 2011 had effectively attained finality as they were not objected to and remained undisturbed for a long period. The court held that the petitioners' failure to issue a 'final' seniority list after the date for receipt of objections had passed could not be used to prejudice respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The court also rejected the petitioner's explanation for re-fixation of seniority after a lapse of 15 years, and upheld the Tribunal's decision to quash the final seniority list.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of re-fixation of seniority after a long lapse of time, the applicability of the rota quota principle in fixing seniority between promotees under different channels, and the interpretation of the Department of Personnel & Training O.M. dated 03.07.1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that questions of seniority should not be re-opened after a considerable period, and that the seniority lists circulated in 2004 and 2011 had effectively attained finality. The court also found that the Department of Personnel & Training O.M. dated 03.07.1986 was not applicable in the present case, and that promotions through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) are promotions albeit accelerated promotions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision to quash the final seniority list and directing the consideration of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for promotion to the post of Principal Private Secretary in accordance with the seniority lists of 11.02.2004 and 15.02.2011.
Vipin Sanghi, J.
CAV. 480/2017
Since the caveator has put in appearance, the caveat stands discharged.
CM APPL. 18266/2017 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4168/2017 and CM APPL.18265/2017 (stay)
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 07.02.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (CAT/Tribunal) in Original Application (OA) No.3573/2015. The said Original Application preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein-assailing the provisional seniority list dated 07.05.2014; the rejection of their representations against re-drawing of the seniority list dated 08.09.2015, and; the redrawn final seniority list dated 08.09.2015, was allowed. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the redrawn seniority list dated 08.09.2015. The Tribunal further directed that the seniority of respondents 1 to 3 be fixed in accordance with the seniority list issued on 11.02.2004 and 15.02.2011, with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal has also directed that the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who were at the relevant time Private Secretaries in the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), be considered for promotion to the post of Principal Private Secretary strictly in accordance with the said seniority lists of 11.02.2004 and 15.02.2011 with all consequential benefits.
2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were all serving as Private Assistants. The next promotional post was that of Private Secretaries. The post of Private Secretaries had two channels for promotion; one was a regular channel of promotion with eight years service in the grade of Private Assistants, whereas the other was five years regular service in the grade of Private Assistants through a Limited Department Competitive Examination (LDCE). The respondents Nos.1 to 3 were given ad hoc promotions as Private Secretaries in the year 1997. The DPC for holding promotions to posts of Private Secretary were held on 06.12.2000, wherein the names of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were considered. The recommendations of the DPC were circulated on 27.12.2000. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were recommended for promotion as Private Secretaries. The petitioners-AIIMS held the LDCE in April, 2001, though it was notified on 29.11.2000. The promotions in respect of the Private Assistants who were successful in LDCE were made on 27.04.2001. The petitioners circulated the provisional seniority list in the cadre of Private Secretaries on 11.02.2004, wherein respondent Nos.1 to 3 were shown senior to the private respondents, i.e., respondent Nos.4 to 8, since they were promoted in December, 2000, whereas respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were promoted on 27.04.2001. The petitioners-AIIMS invited objections, if any, to the said seniority list by 15.02.2004. The petitioners-AIIMS did not take any further steps to disturb the seniority list as circulated on 11.02.2004, and the position remained unchanged. Once again in the year 2011, the petitioners circulated the same seniority list showing respondent Nos.1 to 3 senior to respondent Nos. 4 to 5 in the cadre of Private Secretaries vide Office Memorandum dated 15.10.2011. Once again, objections were invited within 10 days of the issue of the said Office Memorandum. Apparently, no objections were received and the said seniority list was not disturbed/altered by the petitioners. Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 also did not assail the said two seniority lists of the year 2004, or 2011 by raising any grievance before the Tribunal.
3. The petitioners, thereafter, issued an Office Memorandum dated 01.02.2014, once again circulating a draft seniority list inter alia in respect of the Private Secretaries. Once again, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were shown senior to respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in the said seniority list. Apparently, on this occasion, representation was received from respondent No.4 claiming seniority over respondent Nos.1
