Seniority for cadre posts must be based on performance during actual appointments, not merely on Management Trainee selections or periods of training.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The Petitioner, before this Court, serving on the post of Deputy Chief General Manager (Traffic) in the service of Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) being aggrieved by the order passed in O.A. No. 1841/2012, Ravindra Kumar Jain and One Other v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others have filed the present petition praying for quashment of the Order passed by the Tribunal by which draft seniority list dated 05.08.2011 and the final seniority list dated 24.01.2012 have been quashed and the DTC has been directed to prepare a fresh seniority list.

2. The facts of the case reveal that on 29.11.1985, an advertisement was issued by DTC inviting applications or the post of Management Trainees for Repairs and Maintenance/Material Management/Traffic Operations/Audit & Accounts/General Administration.

3. The DTC conducted a selection process and after interviewing about 400 candidates selected candidates were to be engaged as Management Trainees and 22 candidates were found suitable in the discipline of Traffic and Personnel Management and Administration.

4. The DTC pursuant to the process of selection issued a letter dated 13.06.1986 appointing Management Trainee on a consolidated stipend of Rs.1000/- per month.

5. In the appointment letter appointing management trainees, it was made clear that the management trainee will receive fixed emoluments to the tune of Rs.1,000/- and no guarantee was given to them regarding employment.

6. The DTC, after the training was over, took a test of all the candidates and it is not the case where all the candidates were able to qualify the exam for appointment to the post of Manager (Traffic). An appointment letter was issued for the post of Traffic Superintendent on 01.10.1987. The appointment order appointed the petitioner and other identical persons on probation in a regular pay scale for the first time. The DTC did not prepare any gradation list/seniority list in the matter.

7. The candidates appointed by the DTC on the post of Traffic Superintendent/Manager (Traffic) successfully completed their probationary period on 04.10.1988 and all of them were confirmed with effect from 05.10.1988 vide letter dated 06.10.1988. The DTC again did not issue any seniority list while issuing the order of confirmation.

8. The facts of the case further reveal that all the Management Trainees were not at all appointed as Traffic Superintendents as the selection for the post of Traffic Superintendents was based upon examination and, for the first time, the candidates became member of the cadre only when they were issued appointment order on the post of Traffic Superintendent on 01.10.1987.

9. That in the year 1992, as the issue of seniority was to be looked into, the General Manager (HQ) vide his minutes dated 22.12.1992 pointed out the issue of seniority of Traffic Superintendents who had joined on the post from 1987 to 1989 and the matter was referred for legal advice.

10. That in the year, 1997, a seniority list was prepared based upon the merit list and keeping in view the test conducted for appointment to the post of Traffic Superintendent by the respondents. However, certain persons being aggrieved by the seniority list prepared in the matter came up before this Court by filing a writ petition and the same was transferred to the CAT and the CAT has dismissed the writ petition.

11. That a writ petition was preferred against the order passed by the Tribunal and the High C