The entitlement to seniority in the Seniority List of Inspectors Grade-I is determined by the relevant Recruitment and Promotion Rules, the 85th Amendment to the Constitution of India, and the catch-up principle.

JUDGMENT

Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:

"(i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned seniority list Annexure P/4.

(ii) That the respondents No. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to re-cast the seniority list strictly in accordance with the instructions of the Government assigning appropriate place above the respondents No. 3 to 5 to the petitioner.

(iii) That the respondents No. 1 & 2 may kindly be directed not to hold the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Food & Supplies Officers till the seniority list of the Inspectors Grade-I is re-cast as prayed for."

2. On 09.03.2021, this Court had passed the following order:

"Heard.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, as this Court has observed that there is mis-joinder of causes, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition be treated as a petition against respondents No. 1 to 4 and the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition against respondent No. 5, with liberty to agitate the cause against respondent No. 5 afresh. The petition is permitted to be withdrawn qua respondent No. 5, with liberty as prayed for.

Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.

Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has also submitted that the petitioner otherwise also stands promoted to the post of District Controller, F, CS & CA vide Notification dated 03.06.2020. This fact is taken on record."

In view of the said order, the present petition is being treated only against respondents No. 1 to 4.

3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are as under:-

The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Inspector Grade-II on 26.08.1988 in the Food & Supplies Department. Respondents No. 3 and 4 were juniors to him in the Seniority List of Inspectors Grade-II, which was circulated vide letter dated 29.01.1996 (Annexure P/1). In the said Seniority List, the name of the petitioner was figuring at Sr. No. 67, whereas names of respondents No. 3 and 4 were reflected at Sr. Nos. 68 and 71, respectively. Said respondents belong to reserved category and were promoted to the posts of Inspector Grade-I on 26.06.1997 and 24.01.2007 by way of promotion against the posts reserved for their respective categories. The petitioner in his own seniority was promoted to the post of Inspector Grade-I on 09.02.2007. Respondent-Department issued a Tentative Seniority List of Inspectors Grade-I, as it stood on 01.07.2007, vide letter dated 12.07.2007 (Annexure P/2). In this Seniority List, respondents No. 3 and 4, who otherwise were juniors to the petitioner in the feeder category of Inspector Grade-II, were reflected above him. The name of petitioner in the said Seniority List was reflected at Sr. No. 51, whereas, the names of respondents No. 3 and 4 were reflected at Sr. Nos. 42 and 49, respectively.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a representation dated 07.08.2007 (Annexure P/3), yet Final Seniority List of Inspectors Grade-I was finalized by the Department without considering the representation of the petitioner.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that as the private respondents were not promoted to the posts of Inspector Grade-I as per their own seniority in the feeder category of Inspector Grade-II, but were promoted as such by virtue of reservation, therefore, when the petitioner who otherwise was senior to them, was promoted to the post of Inspector Grade-I in his own seniority, he was entitled to be placed over and above the said private respondents in the Seniority List of Inspectors Grade-I and the act of the respondent-Department of not doing so, is bad in law. It is in these circumstances that the petition stood filed with the prayers already enumerated hereinabove.

6. The petition has been resisted by the Department, inter alia, on the ground that the private respondents were promoted ag