Back
TASHI RABSTAN, PUNEET GUPTA
MES No. 510536 Naresh Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Tashi Rabstan, J.
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A. No.061/00040/2016, whereby the learned Tribunal though admitted that the O.A. has merit but dismissed the same on the ground of being barred by law of limitation.
2. The facts-in-brief are that petitioner-Naresh Kumar (general category) and respondent No.4-Vivek Kumar (OBC category) appeared for direct recruitment to the post of Draughtsman Grade-II. On being successful, petitioner was placed at Sr. No.3 of the panel, whereas respondent No.4 was placed at Sr. No.21. Petitioner joined his duties on 16.03.2005, whereas respondent No.4 joined on 14.03.2005. As per seniority list issued on 01.01.2008, petitioner was at Sr. No.4, whereas respondent No.4 was at Sr. No.9.
3. Thereafter, seniority list of Draughtsman Grade-II was issued in August, 2010, but the name of petitioner was not there. He represented on 04.10.2010. Accordingly, another seniority list was issued on 23.01.2012, in which petitioner was shown at Sr. No.307, whereas respondent No.4 was at Sr. No.285, i.e., respondent No.4 was placed over and above the petitione
Seniority lists finalized under pre-overruling law (initiation of recruitment process and quota rotation) protected prospectively; ad hoc service does not confer seniority; repeated provisional lists....
The court affirmed that seniority must be determined based on the recruitment year, not appointment date, ensuring fairness against administrative delays.
Seniority cannot be granted to employees not borne in the cadre; it must reflect the actual date of joining. A fresh seniority list should be prepared following Supreme Court rulings.
Challenges to seniority fixation rejected as time-barred after long delay despite publication; constructive res judicata from prior identical OA applies; settled positions not disturbed to protect ac....
The seniority of candidates appointed from the Reserve List does not rank senior to the candidates initially recommended/appointed in terms of the first recommendation of the UPSC, as they possess hi....
Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation.
Service Laws – Seniority List – OMs made it clear that seniority of direct recruits had to be fixed from the date of appointment and not from date of initiation of recruitment process.
Seniority in public service must follow the order of merit per category, prohibiting inter-category comparisons, and claims made after inordinate delay are unsustainable.
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
