IMPORTANT POINT
Persons appointed later due to administrative lapses are entitled to claim seniority on par with the persons appointed earlier and over and above candidates appointed in subsequent selections.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed to declare the impugned action of the respondents in not according to the seniority and other benefits from the year 2005 on par with all other candidates selected and appointed in pursuance of DSC-2003 and further action in rejecting the representation of the petitioners dated 18.02.104 vide impugned order dated 13.03.2015 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to accord seniority to the petitioners with effect from the date of appointment of all other candidates as per DSC-2003 along with all benefits.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that, petitioners applied for selection to the post of School Assistants pursuant to the notification issued in the year 2003. Originally, the recruitment notification for DSC-2003 was issued in the year 2003 for selection of posts of School Assistants. After issuance of notification, 2nd respondent had issued circular granting relaxation in favour of the candidates possessing single subject certificate in English and directed them to be considered for promotions also. In view of the consideration of candidates with single subject certificate holders from Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Open University, who are otherwise ineligible, the petitioners lost their opportunity of selections, though they are meritorious.

3. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners filed O.A.No.9635 of 2002 and batch, however, the said O.A.No.9635 of 2002 and batch were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed W.P.No.9073 of 2022 and batch. The Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 06.01.2006 held that relaxing the qualifications in favour of single subject certificate holders is illegal and unsustainable

4. In the light of above judgment, the candidates who were appointed on the basis of such single subject certificates are liable to be removed and petitioners ought to have been appointed in their places, however, respondents did not take any action. Therefore, petitioners approached this Hon’ble High Court vide W.P.No.20426 of 2006 and during the course of hearing, this High Court had taken a serious view against the action of respondents. Therefore, the Government has taken a decision to appoint the petitioners, accordingly, petitioners were appointed vide proceedings dated 23.03.2009. The successful candidates in DSC-2003 were appointed vide proceedings dated 28.12.2005. Thus, petitioners are deprived of services and seniority and all other benefits for a period of four years. The delay in appointment of the petitioners is only due to the illegal action of the respondents and not on account of any reason attributable to the petitioners. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to seniority and other benefits on par with the all other candidates appointed in the year 2005 in pursuance of notification in DSC-2003.

5. Petitioners made representation dated 20.06.2013, however, respondents did not take any action on the said representation. Petitioners filed O.A.No.68 of 2014 seeking for notional seniority and pay fixation to the petitioners on par with all other candidates appointed in the year 2005. The Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dated 03.01.2014 granted interim direction permitting the petitioners to submit fresh representation for seniority and notional increments on par with DSC-2003 candidates and the respondents are directed to consider the representation. Accordingly, petitioners submitted detailed representation on 18.02.2014, but the respondents did not take any action and therefore, the petitioners filed contempt cases. The 3rd respondent issued impugned proceedings 13.03.2015 rejecting the representations of the petitioners on the ground that petitioners were appointed pursuant to the interim orders dated 28.09.2006 passed in WPMP No.25826 of 2006 in W.P.No.20426 of 2006. Therefore, petitioners cannot be given seniority along with DSC-2003 candidates and also for the other reason that if notional seniority is given to the petitioner