The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of not unsettling long-standing seniority and the importance of timely challenges to seniority.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

State of Uttarakhand has challenged judgment and order dated 29.11.2022 passed by learned Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand in Claim Petition No. 114/DB/2022. By the said judgment, claim petition filed by Manu Kumar (respondent no. 1 herein) was allowed and two orders passed by Engineer-in-Chief, Uttarakhand Irrigation Department were set aside. By the first order dated 02.02.2022, year of recruitment of respondent no. 1 on the post of Junior Engineer was changed from 2013-14 to 2014-15 and the date of his promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) was altered from 24.02.2014 to 01.07.2014. By the second order dated 02.02.2022, respondent no. 1 was brought down in the final seniority list of Junior Engineers, issued on 30.12.2017, from serial number 510 to serial number 859A. These two orders have been set aside by learned Tribunal. Relevant extract of the impugned judgment is reproduced below:-

“8. Having remained complacent for a good number of years, private respondents (not turned up, despite service of notices upon them) cannot turn around and say that notwithstanding their inaction, they should be kept above the petitioner in the long standing seniority list. The benefits which have accrued to the petitioner, cannot now be disturbed or interfered with. In other words, a settled state of affairs cannot be unsettled now. The Tribunal is of the opinion that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High Courts. Present petition should, therefore, meet the same fate as was met by those whose seniority was already settled and the Hon’ble Courts did not interfere in the same. Order accordingly.

9. The claim petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 02.02.2022 (Annexure: 17 colly) are set aside and amendment to the seniority list pursuant to these orders is also quashed. No order as to costs.

10. It is made clear that the Tribunal has decided present petition only on the premise that normally long standing seniority should not be unsettled. The Tribunal has not gone into other legal aspects of the case.”

2. Learned State Counsel contended that respondent no. 1 was appointed as Junior Clerk in Uttarakhand Irrigation Department in the year 2001, however, he acquired necessary qualification i.e. Diploma in Civil Engineering during recruitment year 2013-14, therefore, he could not have been promoted as Junior Engineer w.e.f. 24.02.2014, in view of provision contained in Rule 5(2) of U.P. Irrigation Department Civil Engineer (Subordinate) Service Rules, 1992, which provides that only such Group-C employees, who have completed ten years of service and who possess necessary educational qualification for appointment as Junior Engineer on the first day of year of recruitment, shall be considered for promotion. He submits that recruitment year means a period of twelve months commencing from the first day of July of a calendar year, therefore, respondent no. 1 could have been considered for promotion as Junior Engineer, only during recruitment year 2014-15. Thus, he submits that the competent authority was justified in changing the year of recruitment and the date of promotion of respondent no. 1, therefore, consequent revision, in the seniority list by the Appointing Authority, could not have been interfered with by learned Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 contended that the date of promotion of his client could not have been interfered with, based on a complaint made by some Junior Engineers appointed by direct recruitment, especially, when such complaint was made seven years after promotion of respondent no. 1. He further submitted that seniority list was finalized by the competent authority after considering objections received from members of service in respect of tentative seniority list, therefore, interference with the final seniority list by the Engineer-in-Chief is unwarranted and illegal. He also contended tha