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
| 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
Seniority in government service is determined by the date of appointment, not just the year joined in the cadre, protecting prior established seniority rights.
Service Laws – Seniority List – OMs made it clear that seniority of direct recruits had to be fixed from the date of appointment and not from date of initiation of recruitment process.
Seniority for government employees must be determined from the date of appointment, not the initiation of recruitment, as upheld in relevant Supreme Court decisions.
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 must be reckoned from the date of substantive appointment, as an employee cannot claim seniority for any period prior to their actual entry into the service or their induction into the cadr....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.