SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal, JJ.
Yash Rattan - Appellant
Versus
Union of Indian - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3576 of 2021
Decided On : 09-04-2021




Seniority in government service is determined by the date of appointment, not just the year joined in the cadre, protecting prior established seniority rights.

Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Seniority - Validity of seniority list challenged after CAT set aside the seniority list of the petitioners - The position of seniors is determined by the year of appointment and not merely by the year joined in the cadre, emphasizing rights from the date of appointment - The judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh versus Ningam Siro, (2020) 5 SCC 689 overruled the previous ratio in N.R. Parmar and reiterates that seniority claims cannot be based on an earlier mere application to a position. (Paras 6, 10, 17, 18)

(B) Service jurisprudence - Petitioners, appointed as Inspectors in 2016, incorrectly placed above the private respondents who became Inspectors in 2011 after their transfer to Delhi Zone - CAT correctly applied law from K. Meghachandra Singh by highlighting that candidates are only ‘selected’ upon completion of recruitment, without rights before that. (Paras 6, 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were direct recruits to Inspector positions in 2016, whereas private respondents had joined earlier in 2011, later transferred but placed below petitioners in a seniority list dated 15th March, 2018. The CAT ruled in favor of the private respondents, setting aside the seniority list and emphasizing that the petitioners, appointed later, cannot be senior to those who joined first.

Findings of Court:
The CAT held that the petitioners cannot claim seniority over the private respondents as they joined the cadre later, and recognized the earlier Supreme Court precedent that guides seniority based on the recruitment process.

Issues: The main issues were whether seniority should be based solely on appointment years versus joining years, and the application of the K. Meghachandra Singh judgment on seniority determinations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that seniority should be based on the date of appointment, and since representations were made against the seniority list before the K. Meghachandra Singh decision, the rights of the petitioners cannot override the established order and must apply as per current legal standards.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to seniority list based on transfers. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments regarding recruitment and seniority. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. application of k. meghachandra singh ruling. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
4. petition dismissed with no merit. (Para 19)

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 he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top