Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.HARI SHANKAR, JYOTI SINGH, AJAY DIGPAUL
Jai Mangal Rai – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. referral of matters due to conflicting decisions. (Para 1 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. evaluation of applicants' qualifications and seniority disputes based on medical clearances. (Para 4 , 7 , 13 , 19) |
| 3. court's interpretation of the applicable recruitment rules. (Para 8 , 10 , 12 , 18 , 20) |
| 4. distinguishing previous cases and their applicability to current disputes. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. final ruling regarding applicability of seniority rules. (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. By order dated 25 February 2019, a Division Bench of this Court referred these matters to a Larger Bench of three Judges, as the Division Bench felt that, on the issue in controversy in these writ petitions, different Division Benches of this Court had ruled differently.
2. We have heard Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Farman Ali, Mr. Ripudaman Bharadwaj, Mr. Subhash Tanwar and Mr. Manish Mohan, learned CGSC for the respondents, at length.
3. To our mind, the issue in controversy can be decided by a mere reference to the applicable Rule.
4. Facts in these writ petitions being identical, we refer to the facts in WP (C) 84/2019, Jai Mangal Rai v. Union of India.
5. Applicati
Seniority among direct recruits is determined by the date of continuous regular appointment, with delays due to medical issues not affecting this determination.
Seniority – Date of entry in a particular service or date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or other or between one group of officer....
Seniority for government employees must be determined from the date of appointment, not the initiation of recruitment, as upheld in relevant Supreme Court decisions.
Rule 22(3) of the Assam Engineering (Public Works Department) Service Rules, 1978 prioritizes promotees over direct recruits for seniority based on vacancy year, complying with Articles 14 and 16 of ....
Seniority assigned to any employee could not be changed after a lapse of 7 years, though even on merit it was found that seniority of the petitioner therein had correctly been fixed.
The court established that training periods for direct recruits are not counted as service until successful completion, impacting seniority rights.
The court reaffirmed that temporary or ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority rights, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory rules for public service appointments.
Inter-se seniority for direct recruits/promotees appointed 27.11.2012-18.11.2019, not finalized by 18.11.2019, determined from recruitment process initiation date per 1986/2014 OMs, overriding later ....
The petitioners were entitled to the benefit of FR 22-B, and the respondent authorities were directed to re-fix the scale of pay of the petitioners by giving them the benefit of FR 22-B.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
