Reserve List candidates cannot claim seniority over Main List candidates based on higher marks if latter joined earlier; seniority follows Main List first, then Reserve List in recommendation order.

ORDER

By Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

Challenge in this OA is to the Seniority List dated 21^st December, 2018 and order of rejection of representation of applicants dated 21^st December, 2018 (Annexure A1 & A2).

2. Facts in nutshell are that the UPSC published an Advertisement No. 51/2012 for the post of Airworthiness Officer. Selection process consisted of written test and interview and total vacancies were of 130 posts. After completion of selection process, Main List of 130 candidates was declared (Initially, list of 100 candidates and subsequently, list of 30 candidates was declared). Reserve List of 25 candidates was prepared. The names of the applicants in Reserve List appeared at serial no. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The applicant no. 1 joined on 29th December, 2014. applicant no. 2 joined on 06th April, 2015, applicant no. 3 joined on 19th February, 2015 and applicant no. 4 joined on 31^st December, 2014. The candidates in the Main List joined between May, 2013 and October, 2013 i.e. before the joining of the applicants belonging to Reserve List.

3. Accordingly, Seniority List was prepared on 21stDecember, 2018 showing the Private Respondent nos. 4 to 28 senior to the applicant nos. 1 to 4. According to the applicants, they have scored more marks than the Private Respondents nos. 4 to 28 and therefore, they should have been ranked above Private Respondent nos. 4 to 28 in the Seniority List.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned senior counsel for the respondents at length.

5. The issue involved in this OA is whether the candidates in Reserve List who have scored more marks than the candidates in the Main list (who have joined prior to the candidates in the Reserve List) can be placed above the candidates in the Main List. This issue is no longer res integra. Relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers’ Association versus State of Gujarat and Others, 1994 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 591, Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. versus Pallavi Gupta and Ors. W.P.(C) 14908/2022 (Delhi High Court) decided on 12^th July, 2023 has recorded following observations:-

“37. Having noted the aforesaid instructions, it is necessary at this juncture to highlight the stand taken by the UPSC before this Court, inasmuch as, when the selection process is through examination conducted by UPSC or any other authority, the selection process is said to be completed on the date of publication / announcement of the result. However in a case where direct recruitment is through the process of interview conducted by the UPSC, it is on the date when the UPSC issues the letter of recommendation of the candidates, that the selection process can be said to be completed.

38. There is no dispute that the date of recommendation of the UPSC insofar as recruitment to 44 vacancies to the post of Assistant Director, Operations is concerned, was April 13, 2015. But pursuant to the petitioners’ approaching the UPSC because of non-joining of a few recommended candidates, the UPSC operated the Reserve List and on May 17, 2016, made fresh recommendations of candidates including the respondent No. 1 in W.P.(C) 14908/2022 Pallavi Gupta. So, it is the date of May 17, 2016 which would be construed as the date of completion of her selection. Likewise, insofar as vacancies to the post of Deputy Director, Operations is concerned, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) 16852/2022 were recommended from the Reserve List for appointment on August 23, 2016 and January 2017 respectively

39. As noted already, paragraph 2.1.1 of the DoP&T OM dated November 11, 2010 prescribes that inter-se seniority of the candidates nominated from Reserve List will be fixed as per the consolidated merit given by the UPSC. The said merit had no bearing insofar as the Main List of April 13, 2015 is concerned. In fac