Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Union of India & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Pallavi Gupta & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 14908 of 2022, CM APPLs. 45835 of 2022 & 53190 of 2022
Decided On : 12-07-2023
Seniority - Union of India - OM dated August 8, 2013 and January 9, 2014 - [Assistant Director, Operations and Deputy Director, Operations] - [June 24, 1978, July 3, 1986, November 11, 2010] - The court considered the issue of seniority of candidates recommended from the Reserve List and the Main List for the posts of Assistant Director, Operations and Deputy Director, Operations. The court analyzed the relevant OMs and guidelines issued by the DoP&T and the UPSC, and concluded that the candidates appointed from the Reserve List do not rank senior to the candidates initially recommended/appointed in terms of the first recommendation of the UPSC, as they possess higher marks and/or had joined the service prior to such initially recommended candidates. The court set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and dismissed the pending applications as infructuous.
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India filed writ petitions challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the petitioners to re-fix the seniority of the respondents in the Seniority Lists for the posts of Assistant Director, Operations and Deputy Director, Operations. The respondents were placed below the candidates from the Main List despite having obtained higher marks in the selection process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned Seniority Lists issued by the petitioners were justified and set aside the order of the Tribunal, dismissing the pending applications as infructuous.
Issues: The main issue was whether the candidates appointed from the Reserve List would rank senior to the candidates initially recommended/appointed in terms of the first recommendation of the UPSC, as they possess higher marks and/or had joined the service prior to such initially recommended candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the OMs and guidelines issued by the DoP&T and the UPSC, and the relevant case law to determine that the candidates appointed from the Reserve List do not rank senior to the candidates initially recommended/appointed in terms of the first recommendation of the UPSC.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and dismissed the pending applications as infructuous.
Key Points: - The seniority of candidates appointed from a Reserve List does not rank senior to candidates initially recommended/appointed from the Main List, even if they possess higher marks or joined earlier [judgement_subject]. - The court considered the issue of seniority for Assistant Director, Operations and Deputy Director, Operations posts, analyzing relevant OMs and UPSC guidelines [judgement_subject]. - Candidates appointed from the Reserve List do not rank senior to candidates initially recommended/appointed from the Main List, as the latter possess higher marks and/or had joined the service prior [judgement_subject]. - The Union of India challenged a Tribunal order directing re-fixation of seniority for respondents who were placed below candidates from the Main List despite obtaining higher marks [judgement_subject]. - The court found the impugned Seniority Lists justified and set aside the Tribunal's order [judgement_subject]. - The main issue was whether candidates appointed from the Reserve List would rank senior to those initially recommended from the Main List, considering higher marks or earlier joining [judgement_subject]. - The court relied on DoP&T and UPSC guidelines and case law to conclude that Reserve List candidates do not rank senior to Main List candidates [judgement_subject]. - The court set aside the Tribunal's order and dismissed pending applications [judgement_subject]. - The selection process for direct recruitment through interviews is completed on the date of the Commission's letter containing its recommendations (!) . - For direct recruitment through examination, the selection process is completed on the date of publication/announcement of results (!) . - The UPSC advised preparing a consolidated Merit List with candidates from the Main List in order of merit, followed by candidates from the Reserve List in order of their recommendation letter date (!) (!) . - The court agreed with the UPSC's advice, finding it in conformity with Supreme Court judgments [11000781520039]. - The Tribunal erred in relying on judgments that were subsequently diluted or set aside by higher forums [11000781520041][11000781520042][11000781520043]. - OMs dated August 8, 2013, and January 9, 2014, relate to seniority based on aggregate marks for Civil Service Examination candidates and are not applicable to the situation of determining seniority between Main List and Reserve List candidates [11000781520044]. - The impugned Seniority Lists issued by the petitioners were justified, and the Tribunal's order was set aside [11000781520045].
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the Union of India through its functionaries, Ministry of Civil Aviation/Director General of Civil Aviation challenging the common order dated March 24, 2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal., for short) in Original Application Nos.1776/2020 and 130/2020 (`OA., for short) whereby the Tribunal has disposed of both the OAs directing the petitioners herein to re-fix the seniority of the respondent No.1 in W.P.(C) 14908/2022 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.(C) 16852/2022 at the appropriate place by taking into account the marks obtained by them in the selection process to the post of Assistant Director, Operations and Deputy Director, Operations respectively, by issuing a revised Seniority List.
FACTUAL MATRIX OF W.P.(C) 14908/2022
2. In the year 2014, the Union Public Service Commission (`UPSC', for short)/respondent No.6, invited applications for filling up 44 posts (17-UR, 16-OBC, 8-SC and 3-ST) of Assistant Director, Operations vide advertisement No.09/2004. Subsequent to the interviews conducted, the UPSC recommended successful candidates for appointment. It so happened that some persons who were recommended did not join the post, resulting in the petitioners approaching the UPSC for recommending other candidates to the post. The UPSC through its letter dated May 17, 2016 operated the Reserve List and recommended the names of six candidates, including the respondent No. 1 for being appointed as Assistant Director, Operations. A provisional Seniority List was issued on November 26, 2019, wherein according to the respondent No. 1, she was placed below the persons who had scored less than her in the selection. Aggrieved by her position in the provisional Seniority List, the respondent No. 1 made a detailed representation for correction of her position. The said representation was rejected by the petitioners herein on October 1, 2020, when they issued a Final Seniority List wherein the respondent No. 1 was again placed below candidates from the Main List who had obtained lesser marks in the selection process. It is against this Final Seniority List that the respondent No. 1 approached the Tribunal.
FACTUAL MATRIX OF W.P.(C) 16852/2022
3. Subsequent to reporting of vacancies to the UPSC (respondent No. 5 in this petition) by the petitioner No.2, the UPSC invited applications to the post of Deputy Director, Operations for filling up eight posts (5-UR, 2-OBC and 1-SC). The UPSC on January 28, 2016 recommended seven candidates for appointment. Further as the candidate recommended at serial No.4 in the Main List did not join the service, nomination/recommendation from the Reserve List was sought for by the petitioners. The UPSC vide communication dated August 23, 2016 recommended respondent No.1 from the Reserve List, who joined the service on October 28, 2016. Subsequently, as the candidate at serial No.5 in the Main List refused to join, another nomination was sought from the UPSC, which recommended respondent No.2 from the Reserve List. After completion of formalities, respondent No.2 joined the service from March 31, 2017.
4. On June 04, 2019, a provisional Seniority List for the post of Deputy Director, Operations, was issued to which the respondent Nos.1 and 2 objected by submitting their representations. On September 13, 2019, the UPSC vide letter No.F.1/246(60)/2014-R-VI provided the consolidated Merit List in which the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were placed below the candidates of the Main List.
5. On October 16, 2019, while disposing of the representations made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 on June 10, 2019, the petitioners issued a Final Seniority List. It is this list that was challenged by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal, as they were placed below the candidates from the Main List despite having obtained higher marks than them even joining the service much earlier than them.
6. The ca
The seniority of candidates appointed from the Reserve List does not rank senior to the candidates initially recommended/appointed in terms of the first recommendation of the UPSC, as they possess hi....
Reserve list candidates, even with higher marks, cannot be placed senior to main list candidates who joined earlier in interview-based UPSC recruitment; seniority follows main list first, then reserv....
Reserve List candidates cannot claim seniority over Main List candidates based on higher marks if latter joined earlier; seniority follows Main List first, then Reserve List in recommendation order.
Seniority in service is a statutory right determined by established merit lists, with waiting list candidates lacking rights to precedence over those appointed from the main list.
Seniority cannot be granted to employees not borne in the cadre; it must reflect the actual date of joining. A fresh seniority list should be prepared following Supreme Court rulings.
Seniority assigned to any employee could not be changed after a lapse of 7 years, though even on merit it was found that seniority of the petitioner therein had correctly been fixed.
Inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees determined by rotation of quotas based on recruitment year (initiation of process), not vacancy year; non-compliant lists set aside for redete....
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
