Seniority cannot be claimed retrospectively without formal promotion and adherence to recruitment rules, as affirmed by the court.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

CM 8645/2021 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

WP(C) 2868/2021

1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (`CAT'), Principal Bench in O.A. No. 3682 of 2019, titled Neelima Azhamchalil Moonnambeth & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., dismissing the said O.A. of the petitioner herein.

2. The petitioner had filed the above O.A. primarily challenging the Seniority List dated 04.07.2018 for the post of Botanical Assistant and had sought retrospective seniority from the date when the petitioner became eligible to be promoted as Botanical Assistant Grade-II in accordance with the then existing Recruitment Rules. The petitioner also challenged the subsequent promotion granted to others to the post of Botanist by the Departmental Promotion Committee (`DPC') conducted on 29.09.2018.

3. The petitioner contends that she was appointed to the post of Preservation Assistant Grade-I and in accordance with the then existing Recruitment Rules, the promotional avenue for the petitioner was Botanical Assistant Grade-II, for which she was eligible to be considered after three years of regular service. The second promotional avenue from the post of Botanical Assistant Grade-II was to the post of Botanical Assistant Grade-I, for which she would have become eligible after three years of further service.

4. The petitioner further submits that the last DPC meeting for making promotions to the post of Botanical Assistant Grade-II, were held on 2nd - 3rd March, 2009, and three persons, who were admittedly senior to the petitioner, were promoted to the said post.

5. The petitioner further submits that vide an Office order dated 19.07.2010, pursuant to the recommendations of the VIth Central Pay Commission, the post of Botanical Assistant Grade-II was merged with the post of Botanical Assistant Grade-I and was designated as Botanical Assistant, with retrospective effect from 01.01.2006, however, the Recruitment Rules for the merged posts were notified only on 04.12.2015. Due to the delay in the notification of the Recruitment Rules, though appointment through Direct Recruitment continued, no DPC for promotion was held.

6. The petitioner was promoted to the said merged post of Botanical Assistant vide the Promotion order dated 29.02.2016.

7. The petitioner claims that her seniority should be counted from the date when she became eligible for the post of Botanical Assistant Grade-II.

8. The learned CAT has rejected this claim of the petitioner, observing as under:

"8. In the representation made by the applicants, the grievance was mostly about the delay in consideration of their cases for promotion. They stated that had a DPC been convened in the year 2010-11, they would have been promoted. All that is, in the realm of speculation. No administration can be compelled to hold a DPC at a particular time. Much would depend on existence of vacancies, administrative exigency or convenience. An employee has to take a chance, as and when it is convened. At any rate, there cannot be a deemed promotion, just because the convening of DPC was delayed."

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Y.V. Rangaiah & Ors. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors., (1983) 3 SCC 284, submits that the delay in holding a DPC cannot prejudice the petitioner and the case of the petitioner for promotion was to be considered in accordance with the then existing Recruitment Rules and should not have been postp