The appointment date and seniority of a candidate should be based on their exam rank, and failure to communicate potential loss of seniority can be held against the authorities.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J.

1. Petitioner, who is posted as Deputy Commandant (Exe) in Central Industrial Security Force (henceforth referred to as the 'CISF.) claims to have qualified Central Police Force Examination in the year 2009 and had secured All India Rank No.8 in the final result declared on 13.10.2010. He claims to have been issued Appointment Letter by the respondents on 25.08.2011 for the post of Assistant Commandant (Exe), wherein he was asked to join his basic training from 05.09.2011. He accepted the offer of appointment vide his communication dated 29.08.2011 and requested the respondents to grant two months. time to join his training. According to petitioner, the said letter was replied by the respondents on 22.09.2011, i.e. much later than when he was supposed to join training on 05.09.2011, wherein it was mentioned that he had sought "Extension for Next Batch" instead of "Extension for Two Months". Petitioner hence could not join his training on 05.09.2011. Vide letter dated 28.09.2012, he was directed by the respondents to join training with the next Batch (27th Batch) from 29.10.2012.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved that in the seniority list notified by the respondents in September, 2014, he was wrongly placed at Sl. No.322 by wrongly taking his initial appointment as 27.10.2012 instead of 25.08.2011. Therefore, petitioner made a representation vide letter dated 27.07.2015 to the respondents, reminder letter dated 02.02.2016 whereof was also sent. The respondents vide letter dated 28.03.2016 informed the petitioner that a similar matter was pending adjudication before the High Court of Hyderabad and he should wait for outcome of the same. Finding no resolution to his grievance, petitioner preferred a writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) 10054/2016, before this Court seeking restoration of his seniority from the date of his appointment i.e. 25.08.2011. During pendency of the said writ petition, the respondents vide order dated 07.10.2016 promoted one Mr. Ankit Dubey to the post of Deputy Commandant (Exe) and placed him at Sl. No.48. Thereafter, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner before this Court was partly allowed vide judgment dated 24.08.2017, wherein it was directed that the seniority of the petitioner shall be considered as per the rank secured by him in the written examination of the year 2009. Thereafter, respondents amended the seniority list vide order dated 11.05.2018. However, in contravention of judgment dated 24.08.2017 passed by this Court, the date of appointment of petitioner was taken as 27.10.2012 instead of 25.08.2011.

3. Consequently, again petitioner made a representation dated 18.12.2018 to the respondents to re-fix his seniority, which was replied by the respondents vide order dated No.E-35015/NS/ADM/ SENIORITY.LIST/18-3972 dated 26.03.2019 R/W Order No. E- 31016/18/2017/Pers.I/170 dated 19.03.2019 informing the petitioner that his seniority in the rank of Assistant Commandant (Exe) has been re-fixed by the Directorate vide order dated 11.05.2018. Thereafter, petitioner was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant (Exe) vide Notification dated 26.03.2019.

4. Petitioner claims to have been erroneously placed below one Mr.Bijender Singh Patwal. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 11.05.2018 passed by the Directorate and respondents. Communication dated 26.03.2019, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside thereof. In addition, petitioner is also seeking proper pay fixation, including grant of senior time scale from the date of his initial appointment, i.e. 25.08.2011 in parity with his batch mates of CPF- 2009 (26th Batch).

5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this Court vide judgment dated 24.08.2017 passed in W.P.(C) 10054/2016 had directed the respondents to re-fix seniority of petitioner as per the rank secured by him in the examination of the year 2009. However, erroneously, the respondents hav