Settled seniority in government services, once established, cannot be disturbed after lengthy acceptance of terms and delay in seeking redress.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Principles of seniority and promotion in government services - The court ruled that seniority, once settled, cannot be disturbed. The interpretation of consent related to empanelment for U.N. Missions and the prematurity of delayed representation were also discussed. (Paras 10, 11, 12)

(B) Judicial discipline - The court emphasized that long-settled seniority cannot be revisited. A petition filed four years post-rejection of a representation lacks merit. Delay in seeking judicial intervention impacts the claim’s validity. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Central Reserve Police Force since 1994, accepted empanelment for a U.N. Mission and, as a result, delayed attendance at the Pre-Promotional Course for promotion, affecting his seniority when compared to batchmates promoted earlier. He challenged a decision denying him seniority similar to a peer who did not claim such a condition.

Findings of Court:
The Court determined that seniority, established through a lengthy tenure, should not be altered based on the petitioner's agreement to forego seniority for U.N. empanelment. It further found no merit in the petition due to untimeliness and lack of actionable claims.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the legitimacy of altering settled seniority based on a prior arrangement and whether the petitioner's delay in seeking recourse hindered his claim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that a previously accepted agreement regarding seniority could not be contested after years have elapsed, and improper delay in representation affected the petition’s credibility.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. promotion and seniority impacted by consent. (Para 3 , 4)
2. challenge to seniority communication. (Para 6 , 7)
3. settled seniority cannot be disturbed. (Para 10 , 11)
4. timeliness of representation affects claims. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. judicial findings influence current claims. (Para 15 , 16)
6. petition dismissed; no merit found. (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

CM No.20586/2021 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6562/2021

3. The petitioner joined respondents Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), as a Sub-Inspector, in the year 1994. The petitioner, in or about the year 2002, consented for empanelment for a U.N. Mission and further consented that he will not claim seniority, if could not go for Pre-Promotional Course on account of being so empanelled. The petitioner, as per his seniority, became entitled to go for the Pre-Promotional Senior Sub-Inspector Cadre Course, necessary for promotion from Sub-Inspector to Inspector, on 7th April, 2003 but did not go for the said Course, to save his chance of proceeding for the U.N. Mission for which he had been empanelled. The petitioner, in fact proceeded to Kosovo, on U.N. Mission, on 8th May, 2003 and remained there till 2004. The petitioner finally completed the Senior Sub-Inspector Cadre Course between 24th January, 2005 and 25th March, 2005 and was promoted to the post of Inspector in May, 2005 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Commandant in 2010.

4. We may notice, that as per the averments in the petition, the batchmates of the petitioner, i.e. those who joined CRPF as Sub-Inspector with the petitioner in the year 1994 and who were not empanelled for the U.N. Mission and did their Pre-Promotional Course as per their seniority, were promoted to the post of Assistant Commandant three years prior to the petitioner i.e. in the year 2007.

5. It can safely be assumed that the seniority of the petitioner as Inspector must be of May, 2005 and in the post of Assistant Commandant, of 2010.

6. It is further the case of the petitioner that vide judgment dated 15th March, 2007 of this Court in W.P. (C) 18544/2004 filed by one R.K. Gupta, similarly situated as the petitioner, the said R.K. Gupta was restored his seniority immediately below his batchmates. The petitioner, after nearly four years from the said Judgment, on 3rd January, 2011, made representations and which did not meet with any success, though several replies were sent to the petitioner. Finally, vide communication dated 31st July, 2017 the petitioner was informed that he was not at par with R.K. Gupta, since R.K. Gupta had not shown unwillingness to undergo the Pre-Promotional Course, while the petitioner had.

7. This petition has been filed, impugning the communication dated 31st July, 2017 and seeking seniority in the rank of Assistant Commandant, at par with his batchmates.

8. The petition has been filed, impleading only Union of India and CRPF as parties. None of the other personnel whose seniority is sought to be affected by the relief claimed in this petition, are impleaded as parties. Needless to state, those promoted as Assistant Commandants between the year 2007, when the batchmates of the petitioner or the last of the said batchmates were/was promoted, and the year 2010, would be affected and prejudiced if the petitioner were to be conferred seniority in the post of Assistant Commandant, of the year 2007.

9. Not only so, it is not the case of the petitioner that his seniority in the post of Inspector was at par with his batchmates. Since the petitioner was promoted as Inspector in the year 2005, while his batchmates were promoted in the year 2003, it can safely be assumed that the present seniority of the petitioner in the post of Assistant Commandant is continuing since the earlier post of Inspector.

10. In Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'souza Vs. Union