Seniority, once settled, cannot be unsettled after a prolonged delay.

JUDGMENT :

(Vipin Sanghi, J.)

1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.04.2017, rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.32 of 2017, preferred by respondent no.4 herein.

2. The appellants were not impleaded as party respondents in the writ petition. They preferred this appeal along with an application to seek leave to appeal, which was granted by this Court on 20.11.2018.

3. Respondent no.4, along with others, participated in a selection process for recruitment against four posts of Registration Clerk. He was ranked at Sl. No.3 in the merit list. The candidate at Sl. No.1 was offered appointment. Thereafter, there was a ban imposed on fresh appointments, which was lifted after 9-10 months. However, neither the person at Sl. No.2, namely Mr. P.S. Jeena, nor respondent no.4 was offered appointment. Mr. P.S. Jeena approached the Allahabad High Court by filing Writ Petition No.19337 of 1990, which was allowed by the Allahabad High Court on 08.03.1999 with a direction to the respondent-authorities to grant him appointment. Consequently, he was appointed w.e.f. 23.12.1989.

4. Thereafter, respondent no.4 also approached the Allahabad High Court by filing Writ Petition No.22418 of 2000. The same was transferred to this Court, and decided on 31.03.2006, and as a consequence of the said decision, respondent no.4 was offered appointment on the post of Registration Clerk vide appointment order dated 17.05.2006. The appointment order stated that the appointment was effective on the date of appointment.

5. Appellant no.1 was appointed as Registration Clerk on 18.04.1991, and appellant no.2 was appointed as Registration Clerk on 26.08.2004- upon promotion. The Registration Department issued a final seniority list on 16.12.2009, which has been filed along with the present special appeal by the appellants. In the said seniority list, the names of the appellants have been shown at Sl. No.37 and 39 respectively, whereas the name of respondent no.4 has been shown at Sl. No.52, and his date of appointment as 23.05.2006. Respondent no.4, admittedly, did not raise any objection to the said final seniority list.

6. It appears that a revised seniority list was sought to be prepared by the Department on 07.04.2016. Respondent no.4 objected to the same, and sought re-fixation of his seniority from the date on which Mr. Jeena was shown as appointed. The respondent-Department finalized the seniority list on 14.12.2016. Thereafter, objections of respondent no.4 were also rejected on 14.12.2016. Consequently, respondent no.4 preferred the writ petition in the year 2017, wherein the impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge. The operative direction issued by the learned Single Judge, reads as follows:-

“Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 14.12.2016, Annexure No.5 and Government Order dated 05.12.2016 Annexure No.6 are quashed and set-aside. Respondent no.2 is directed to grant all benefits to the petitioner as granted to Mr. L.M. Rawat, who was at SL. No.1 in the select list and appointed on 30.12.1989. The petitioner would be deemed to be appointed in the year 1989 for all intents and purposes.”

7. The submission of Mr. Bahuguna, learned counsel for the appellants is that respondent no.4 did not assail the final seniority list dated 16.12.2009, wherein the appellants were shown senior to him. He raised the challenge, for the first time before this Court, in the year 2017, i.e. nearly 8 years after the issuance of the final seniority list dated 16.12.2009, and he sought re-fixation of his date of appointment for grant of benefits, after 11 years of his appointment.

8. Mr. Bahuguna submits that the impugned order, which has the effect of disturbing the settled seniority list, wherein the appellants were shown senior, was passed without impleading the affected persons, including the appellants. He further submits that the settled seniority could not have been unsettled after suc