Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 11206
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B.K SHRIVASTAVA, M (J), DR. SANJIV KUMAR, M (A)
Sri Nagaraj S, Poornima Pradeep, D. Ganesha, C.C.Cheluvaraya, B.R.Madhusudan, AT Srikantaiah, K Sudhakara, S.Nagendra, P.Chidananda, Tarakesh T. B., Chethan Uthappa T. K., Raju K, Mallikarjuna Swamy N, Rekha K. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Chief Post Master General, Karnataka Circle – Respondent
Original Application No.170/00008/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.A.R.Holla
For the Respondents: Shri.S Prakash Shetty
The proper inter-se seniority of promotees and direct recruits must be based on principles established in earlier Office Memorandums, reflecting the dates of promotion and appointment, not altered by subsequent directives.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Seniority lists of Inspector of Posts - Original Application challenging the seniority lists quashed; applicants promotees from 2004-2007 had their seniority not properly accounted, according to earlier Office Memorandums. Court emphasized that the principles from O.M. dated 7.2.1986, 3.7.1986, and 3.3.2008 have precedence over the provisions established post the N.R. Parmar judgment and subsequent directives. The Respondents are directed to implement a revised seniority list correctly reflecting the applicants' legitimate positions. (Paras 34, 68, 70)
(B) Inter-se seniority and precedence of recruitment principles - The applicability of seniority provisions is fixed as per the date of appointment for earlier dates compared to later principals introduced post judgments. This ruling protects those whose seniority was affected by subsequent recruitment adjustments made without acknowledgment of previous service dates. (Paras 1, 38)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicants' background and claims regarding seniority. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claims based on recruitment rules and principles of seniority. (Para 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. applicants assert adherence to earlier om principles. (Para 15 , 17 , 19) |
| 4. respondents' defense on administrative measures and centralization. (Para 22 , 24 , 25 , 30) |
| 5. clarifications and consistency across cadre management. (Para 28 , 31 , 34 , 36) |
| 6. court's analysis of competing seniority claims. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 7. principles and om applicability regarding inter-se seniority. (Para 42 , 44 , 46 , 48 , 50 , 52 , 56) |
| 8. determination of seniority based on past rules over recent changes. (Para 58 , 62 , 64) |
| 9. final orders and directives regarding seniority. (Para 70 , 71) |
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 claiming the following reliefs:
“i. To quash the seniority lists appended to the
(i) Order No.130975/2020/SPN-II-DoP dated 24.07.2020, Annexure A6,
(ii) Order No.STA/1-21/AIGL/IP/III dated at Bengaluru-560001 the 06.05.2022, Annexure A7
(iii) Order No.X-07/11/2019-SPN-II dated 20.06.2022, Annexure A8,
(iv) Order No.X- 07/14/2019-SPN-II dated 22.11.2019, Annexure-A9 and
(v) Order No.X- 07/21/2019-SPN-11 dated 23.01.2020, Annexure A10 and the Order No.9-10/2022- SPG-II dated 04.10.2022, issued by the respondent No.1, Annexure-A21
ii. Direct the Respondent No.1 to revise the All India Seniority Lists strictly as per the
(i) O.M. No.35014/2/86-Estt (D) dated 07.02.1986, Annexure-3,
(ii) O.M. No.22011/7/86-Estt(D) dated 03.07.1986, Annexure-A4 and
(iii) O.M. No.20011/1/2006-Estt.(D) dated 03.03.2008, Annexure-A5 and
iii. Grant such other relief deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.”
2. The reliefs are claimed on the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5(1) to (10) of the Original Application. The brief facts narrated by the applicants are that the applicants were appointed as Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants in various Divisions in Karnataka Circle. After completing 5 years of service, they appeared in the departmental examination and, on being successful, they were appointed as Inspector of Posts against the vacancy years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. The Chief Postmaster General fixed the seniority of the applicants by placing them in the actual year of their appointment and not as per the year of vacancy. Further, promotion to the next higher cadre of Assistant Superintendent of Posts was granted to the applicants based on the said seniority lists. In view of Rule 32-E (a) (i) of Posts and Telegraphs Manual Volume IV, the seniority was fixed based on the order of merit of the competitive examination. Where recruitment is made partly from departmental candidates and partly from outsiders, the former would always rank senior to the latter. The seniority was fixed by placing the direct recruits from the date of their entry into service.
3. The seniority list in the cadre has to be finalized on an all-India basis. The said seniority list is the criteria for placement into the Postal Services Group B cadre. As per the O.M. No.35014/2/86-Estt.(D) dated 07.02.1986, O.M. No. 22011/7/86 (D) dated 03.07.1986 and O.M. No. 20011/1/2006-Estt. (D) dated 03.03.2008 of the DoP&T it was envisaged that inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees is to be fixed on the basis of the rotation of quota of vacancies as per the actual year of appointment after declaration of results/selection and completion of pre-appointment formalities. However, subsequently, the direct recruit Inspectors appointed during the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 were included in the list of 2004, adversely affecting the promotional opportunities of the applicants. The officers who have been assigned seniority in the cadre, as per the Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, are aggrieved by assigning seniority to those Inspectors who were appoint
