Employees should not suffer for administrative delays; seniority must be reckoned from completion of training, not joining date, ensuring equality and fairness in the public service.

ORDER :

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

The challenge in these writ petitions is to the orders dated 16.05.2017 and 21.11.2017 passed by the second and third respondents respectively. Therefore, this Court has taken up both the writ petitions together and disposed of them by a common order. By the said order, the representation submitted by the petitioners seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector from the date of completion of institutional training came to be rejected.

2. The Facts of the case:

2.1. While the petitioners were working as Head Constables, the respondents issued a notification dated 16.06.2011, inviting applications for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive Branch), out of which 40% of the posts were reserved for in-service candidates. The petitioners, who were eligible and entitled to be considered for selection to the said post, participated in the selection process and were declared successful in all stages of selection. Thereafter, the petitioners were sent for institutional training for a period of six months and successfully completed the training.

2.2. Though the petitioners completed the institutional training on 16.03.2012, they were not permitted to join duty owing to the pendency of the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.10650, 19801 of 2010 and 18175 of 2011 filed by third parties challenging the recruitment process pertaining to the year 2009. W.P.Nos.10650 and 19810 of 2010 were allowed on 05.04.2011 and WP.No.18175 of 2011 was allowed on 23.04.2014. By the said orders, a direction was issued to recast the vacancies.

2.3. The petitioners contended that since the direction issued in W.P.No.18175 of 2011 would affect their appointment, they filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.1820 of 2012 along with an application seeking leave to file the writ appeal. The said writ appeal was allowed and the order passed by the learned single Judge was set aside and the matter was remanded to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration by order dated 04.02.2014. Pursuant thereto, after hearing all parties concerned, the learned single Judge dismissed the said writ petition with costs vide order dated 23.04.2014. Thereafter, the said order was challenged by third parties before the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.633 of 2014, which came to be dismissed on 12.02.2015. Thereafter, the petitioners were permitted to join duty on 06.05.2014.

2.4. While the petitioners were serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector, the respondents published the seniority list of Assistant Sub-Inspector on 26.04.2016, wherein the date of joining duty was shown as 06.05.2014, which adversely affected the seniority of the petitioners and their promotional prospects. Consequently, the petitioners submitted representations to the respondents seeking revision of the seniority list by reckoning the date of seniority as the date of completion of institutional training. However, the said representations came to be rejected by the impugned orders. Hence, the present writ petitions.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had completed the institutional training on 16.03.2012 and that there was no fault on their part. Since they were permitted to join duty belatedly for reasons beyond their control, the seniority ought to be reckoned from the date of successfully completion of institutional training and not from the date of joining duty, as otherwise it would adversely affect their promotional prospects.

4. In response, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that although the petitioners were permitted