The court affirmed that seniority must be determined based on the recruitment year, not appointment date, ensuring fairness against administrative delays.

ORDER

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

Since the issues and the facts involved in both aforesaid Original Applications are the same, the same are being disposed of by this common order. However, for writing the present order, the facts are being taken from OA No. 2252/2023 (Amit Kumar ) treating the same as the lead case.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants are citizens of Bharat and are entitled to all Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Bharat. It was submitted that pursuant to an employment notification issued by the respondents in May 2012 for filling up, inter alia, various posts of Post Graduate Teachers in specified subjects, the applicants submitted their applications and duly participated in the recruitment process. The recruitment process, however, was inordinately delayed and ultimately culminated in the selection and appointment of the applicants during the years 2016 and 2017.

3. The learned counsel further submitted that during the very same vacancy year, namely 2012, the respondent department also effected promotions to the post of Post Graduate Teachers. As per the applicable Recruitment Rules, the post of PGT is required to be filled by 25% through Direct Recruitment and 75% through promotion, failing which by direct recruitment. Despite this position, after the appointment of the applicants, the respondents issued a tentative seniority list dated 03.09.2021 wherein the seniority of the applicants was proposed to be fixed from the date of declaration of results and they were rotated in the ratio of 1:3 with promotees of the year 2016, instead of fixing their seniority from the recruitment year 2012 in terms of Government of India DoPT Office Memorandum dated 04.03.2014.

4. It was contended that the applicants submitted detailed objections and representations against the said tentative seniority list and specifically requested the respondent department to fix their seniority in accordance with DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014. However, the said objections were rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 06.06.2023 by way of a general and non-speaking order. He submitted that the said order is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law, and pursuant thereto the respondents are now in the process of issuing a final seniority list, which would seriously prejudice the rights of the applicants.

5. The learned counsel submitted that as per DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014, the applicants are clearly entitled to fixation of their seniority from the recruitment year. For ready reference, the relevant extract of the said OM was relied upon, which reads as under:

“5. The matter has been examined in pursuance of Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 27.11.2012, in Civil Appeal No. 7514–7515/2005 in the case of N.R. Parmar vs. UOI & Ors., in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs and it has been decided that the manner of determination of inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees would be as under:

(a) xxxx

(b) The rotation of quota based on the available direct recruits and promotees appointed against the vacancies of a Recruitment Year, as provided in DoPT OM dated 07.02.1986 / 03.07.1986, would continue to operate for determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees;

(c) The available direct recruits and promotees, for assignment of inter se seniority, would refer to the direct recruits and promotees who are appointed against the vacancies of a Recruitment Year;

(d) Recruitment Year would be the year of initiating the recruitment process against a vacancy year;

(e) Initiation of recruitment process against a vacancy year would be the date of sending of req