Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal, JJ.
Yash Rattan & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 3576 of 2021
Decided On : 09-04-2021
Position in Seniority List in Dispute – Petitioners herein were appointed as Inspectors in Delhi Commissionerate of respondents under direct recruit quota – Private respondents were also direct recruits recruited in year 2011 in various zones outside Delhi. – At their request, they were transferred to Delhi Zone in year 2014. – There was a substantial re-structuring in department, resulting in steep increase in number of posts of Inspectors in Delhi Zone. – Petitioners who were appointed on direct recruitment basis against vacancies for year of 2014, joined cadre only in year 2016. – Respondents came out with a seniority list of Inspectors in which respondents herein were placed below petitioners – Main ground of challenge in OA was that petitioners who had joined department after joining of private respondents cannot be placed above them in seniority list – Said OA was allowed by Tribunal vide impugned order and seniority list, to extent it placed petitioners who were appointed and joined Delhi Commissionerate subsequent to date of transfer of private respondents, was set aside – OA was allowed and the seniority list was set aside to extent it placed petitioners above private respondents.
Finding of the court: Completion of selection process, a candidate becomes a selected candidate and therefore, finding in N.R. Parmar (supra) that selected candidate cannot be blamed for administrative delay, was not correct – Seniority cannot be claimed from the date when the incumbent is yet to be borne in the cadre and therefore, norms on assessment of inter se seniority, suggested in N.R. Parmar (supra) case were disapproved – Decision in N.R. Parmar (supra) case is overruled, however the decision will not affect the inter se seniority already based on N.R. Parmar (supra) case and the same is protected. – Decision will apply prospectively. – CAT has correctly applied dicta in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) case in present case and has proceeded to quash seniority list to extent it placed petitioners above private respondents. – Fact that CAT decision would impact inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits (petitioners), is not subject matter of present petition, and therefore, need not be examined. – It is also an admitted position that in present case requisitions for appointment of petitioners were sent to SSC recruiting authority after private respondents had already joined Delhi Commissionerate. – Therefore, even in terms of OM petitioners cannot be placed above the private respondents.
Result: Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
AMIT BANSAL, J.
C.M. No.10817/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions and as per extant Rules.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3576/2021 & C.M. No.10818/2021 (for leave to file the present writ petition on behalf of petitioners No. 3 to 18.)
3. The present writ petition impugns the order dated 13th October, 2020 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA No.2955/2019. By the said impugned order, OA filed by respondents no.4 to 31 herein (who were the applicants before the CAT) was allowed and the seniority list dated 15th March, 2018, which was the subject matter of challenge before the CAT, was set aside. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, who were the respondents before the CAT.
4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are set out hereinafter.
5. The petitioners herein were appointed as Inspectors in the Delhi Commissionerate of the respondents in the year 2016 under the direct recruit quota. The private respondents (who were the petitioners before the CAT) were also direct recruits recruited in the year 2011 in various zones outside Delhi. At their request, they were transferred to the Delhi Zone in the year 2014. On 31.07.2014, there was a substantial re-structuring in the department, resulting in steep increase in the number of posts of Inspectors in Delhi Zone. On account of the increase in number of vacancies, the private respondents took a transfer to Delhi Commissionerate from their parent cadre and were placed at the bottom of the seniority list. The petitioners who were appointed on direct recruitment basis against the vacancies for the year of 2014, joined cadre only in the year 2016. On 15th March, 2018, the respondents came out with a seniority list of Inspectors in which the respondents herein were placed below the petitioners. The seniority list was prepared on the basis of OM No. 20011/1/2012-Estt.(D) dated 4th March, 2014 which in turn had been prepared in terms of the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. N.R. Parmar & Ors., (2012) 13 SCC 340. The private respondents made various representations against the said seniority list.
6. The representations not having been considered favourably, the private respondents filed OA No.1251/2019 challenging the seniority list of Inspectors as on 31st March, 2015 issued on 15th March, 2018. On 5th August, 2019, the official respondents amended the RRs with regard to promotion of Inspectors to the post of Superintendents. On 16th September, 2019, the private respondents withdrew OA No.1251/2019 with liberty to file fresh OA. On 30th September, 2019, fresh OA No.2955/2019 was filed by the private respondents challenging the seniority list dated 15th March, 2018, from which the present petition arises. The main ground of challenge in the said OA was that the petitioners who had joined the department after the joining of the private respondents cannot be placed above them in the seniority list. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh &Ors. Vs. Ningam Siro & Ors., (2020) 5 SCC 689, in which the earlier judgment of N.R. Parmar (supra) was overruled. The said OA was contested by both, the official respondents as well as the petitioners herein by filing counter affidavits.
7. The said OA 2955/2019 was allowed by the Tribunal vide the impugned order and the seniority list dated 15th March, 2018, to the extent it placed petitioners who were appointed and joined Delhi Commissionerate subsequent to the date of the transfer of the private respondents, was set aside. It was held by the CAT that (i) the petitioners herein who were appointed in the year 2016 cannot be placed above the private respondents who were appointed in the year 2011 and came on transfer to Delhi Zone in the year 2014; (ii) the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar (supra) would apply only in the context of fixation of inter se seniority be
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
