The judgment establishes that once a seniority matter is judicially settled, it should not be altered by executive action, reaffirming the principles of equality and fairness in public employment.

ORDER

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

Brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the applicant joined the subordinate cadre service on 03.07.1997 as Small Industry Promotion Officer (SIPO) in the office of the Development Commissioner, Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises (DC–MSME), having been selected through UPSC under the Direct Recruitment quota, pursuant to the recruitment process initiated on 13.04.1994 in response to the DPC held on 12.02.1994 for vacancies accrued during the period from 31.03.1988 to 31.03.1993.

2. On 02.11.2000, the Final Seniority List of SIPOs was circulated by DC–MSME vide letter No. A-23020/1/2000-A (NG) dated 02.11.2000, which suffered from various illegalities, including absence of clear seniority dates, alteration of the existing rota-quota ratio from DR:PR 75:25 to 40:60, and placement of purely ad-hoc promotee SIPOs nearly six years above direct recruit SIPOs.

3. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide judgment dated 19.04.2004 in WP No. 6109/2004 ( V.K.K. Nadimpalli vs Union of India ), categorically ratified the said Final Seniority List dated 02.11.2000 and confirmed the applicant’s subordinate service seniority date as a direct recruit from the date of initiation of the recruitment process, i.e., 13.04.1994, vis-à-vis promotee officers whose seniority was reckoned from the date of occurrence of vacancies between 31.03.1988 and 31.03.1993, strictly following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and DoPT OMs dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986. The applicant claims reciprocal legal benefits during his subsequent induction into the IES cadre under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

4. Being aggrieved by deviation from the court-settled seniority, the applicant along with Shri V.K.K. Nadimpalli filed OA No. 329/2019 before the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, seeking directions to the respondents to maintain the court-settled seniority date and inter-se seniority procedure as affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court in WP No. 6109/2004. The Tribunal disposed of the OA on 21.05.2021, directing the respondents to pass an appropriate order on representation, duly considering all relevant factors including the judgment in N.R. Parmar .

5. In purported compliance thereof, the Secretary (DEA-IES Cadre) passed a speaking order dated 22.10.2021, which effectively nullified the Hon’ble High Court’s verdict without any cogent reasoning. The applicant thereafter filed OA No. 1482/2022 before the CAT seeking fixation of a precise induction date into IES as 01.01.2001, derived from the inter-se seniority procedure postulated by the Hon’ble High Court in WP No. 6109/2004. The OA was dismissed on technical grounds for non-impleadment of senior IES officers. A Review Application No. 101/2022 was also dismissed ex parte on 09.05.2023.

6. Owing to financial constraints, the applicant pursued the matter through legal notices and representations under the National Litigation Policy and also approached the Hon’ble President of India. However, no corrective action has been taken by the Secretary (DEA- IES Cadre) till date.

7. The IES Cadre issued a Draft Seniority List of IES Officers vide Order No. 13012/1/2024-IES dated 27.02.2024, disregarding the binding judgments of the Hon’ble High Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the CAT.

9. Counsel for the Applicant submits that his subordinate service seniority date of 13.04.1994 and the inter-se seniority procedure governing his future induction into IES stood conclusively settled by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP No. 6109/2004, which attained finality. The said judgment was rendered after fully applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and DoPT OMs dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986, and was further supported by a joint affidavit filed by DC-MSME a