Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1934

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R.N. Singh, Member (J), B. Anand, Member (A)
Prakash Pant – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 2586/2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. Sunil
For the Respondents: Mr. Satish Kumar for R 1 & 2, Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Mishra with Mr. Swagata Gupta, Ms. Renu, Mr. Piyush, Ms. Shivani, Ms. Arthana for R-3 to 32

Inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees determined by rotation of quotas based on recruitment year (initiation of process), not vacancy year; non-compliant lists set aside for redetermination per Supreme Court ratio.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Seniority determination in civil services - Inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees - Seniority lists issued from 2015 to 2020 set aside as not in accordance with Supreme Court judgment mandating rotation of quotas based on recruitment year (year of initiating recruitment process), not vacancy year; DoP&T OMs dated 07.02.1986/03.07.1986 applicable, OM dated 03.03.2008 read down ab initio; post-2010 finalized list revisited improperly by assigning seniority to direct recruits based on vacancy year in violation of rotation principle - Tribunal directed redetermination strictly per Supreme Court rulings, without reopening settled pre-27.11.2012 seniorities unless unsettled. (Paras 9, 16-25, 29)

(B) Judicial review - Compliance with Supreme Court directives - DoP&T advice/OM dated 04.03.2014 purporting to implement Supreme Court judgment cannot override core ratio that seniority follows recruitment year initiation, not vacancy occurrence; protection via prospective overruling inapplicable to lists non-compliant with earlier judgment. (Paras 13, 24-25)

Facts of the case:
Promotee officers challenged multiple draft and final seniority lists of service cadre issued 2015-2020, and related promotion order, claiming direct recruits wrongly placed above by fixing seniority per vacancy year instead of recruitment year, contrary to Supreme Court mandate; earlier 2010 list finalized but revised on direct recruits' objections; Tribunal's prior allowance set aside by High Court remanding for fresh determination per specific Supreme Court judgments.

Findings of Court:
Impugned lists not consonant with Supreme Court law; directed fresh final seniority list per rotation of quotas using recruitment year, with consequential benefits to promotees.

Issues: Whether impugned seniority lists (2015-2020) conformed to Supreme Court ruling on inter se seniority via recruitment year rotation, and effect of subsequent prospective overruling judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: Seniority must interspace direct recruits/promotees per rotation quotas for same recruitment year (initiation date), not vacancy year; revisiting pre-judgment finalized lists requires strict adherence, without disturbance unless per law; non-compliant lists quashable despite nodal advice.

Result: OA allowed; impugned lists/orders set aside; fresh seniority list to issue within 12 weeks per Supreme Court judgments.

Table of Content
1. applicants and respondents listed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. prior tribunal order set aside by high court. (Para 4)
3. undisputed cadre composition and prior seniority. (Para 7 , 8)
4. applicants argue violation of n.r. parmar. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. respondents defend dop&t compliance. (Para 13 , 14)
6. seniority must follow n.r. parmar. (Para 15 , 16)
7. n.r. parmar quotes on rotation of quotas. (Para 17 , 18)
8. seniority not based on vacancy year. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
9. dop&t om 2014 inapplicable pre-2012. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
10. k. meghachandra protection inapplicable. (Para 25)
11. prejudice presumed from seniority revision. (Para 27 , 28)
12. impugned lists quashed; redraw per n.r. parmar. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

In the present OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants, 32 in number, are aggrieved by the Seniority List issued on various dates. The applicants are also aggrieved by the office order dated 08.08.2019 vide which the official respondents have operated the Final Seniority List by asking for vigilance clearance of the private respondents after holding DPC for further promotion of JTS grade of IIS Cadre.

2. In the present OA, the applicants have prayed for the following relief:

(i) to quash and set aside Draft Seniority List of Senior Grade Officers of Indian Information Service Group 'B' as on 01.04.2015 (corrected upto 25.08.2015), issued on 08.06.2015,

(ii) to quash and set aside Final Seniority List of Senior Grade Officers of Indian Information Service Group 'B' as on 01.10.2015, issued on 05.05.2016,

(iii) to quash and set aside Final Seniority List of Senior Grade Officers of Indian Information Service Group 'B' as on 01.04.2017, issued on 08.06.2017,

(iv) to quash and set aside Final Seniority List of Senior Grade Officers of Indian Information Service Group 'B' as on 01.04.2018, issued on 20.04.2018,

(v) to quash and set aside Final Seniority List of Senior Grade Officers of Indian Information Service Group 'B' as on 01.01.2019, issued on 25.08.2020,

(vi) to quash and set aside Office Memorandum F No A- 23012/1/2015-HS/386, dated 10.05.2006 deciding the representations/objections of the Senior Grade Officers of Indian Information Service,

(viii) to quash and set aside Office Order dated 08.08.19, by which the Respondent has operated the Final Seniority List (Annexure A- 2 supra) and has asked for vigilance clearance of the private respondents after holding DPC for further promotion to JTS Grade of IIS Group.

(ix) to grant costs of this application to the applicants herein, and

(x) to pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interests of justice.

3. The claim of the applicants has been contested by the respondents by filing counter reply. The applicants have filed rejoinder reiterating their claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Tribunal had allowed the OA vide order/judgment dated 02.08.2022 by setting aside the impugned Seniority Lists and with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to re-draw the same strictly in accordance with the extant DoP&T Memorandum on the subject in light of the judgments and pronouncements by the Hon’ble Apex Court, specifically the judgment rendered in the case of K. Megha Chandra Singh & Ors. Vs. Ningam Siro & Ors. (2020) 5 SCC 689 and to comply with such direction within twelve weeks from the date of such order. Such order/judgment of the Tribunal was challenged by the official respondents before the Hon’ble High Court vide W.P.(C) No. 1645/2022 and the same was also challenged by the private respondents herein by way of W.P.(C) No. 796/2023 and both the Writ Petitions were disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide common order/judgment dated 12.08.2025. Para 9 of such order/judgment of the Hon’ble High Court reads as under:

“In view of the above, we set aside the I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1934

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALR.N. Singh, Member (J), B. Anand, Member (A)Prakash Pant – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentO.A. No. 2586/2019

Inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees determined by rotation of quotas based on recruitment year (initiation of process), not vacancy year; non-compliant lists set aside for redetermination per Supreme Court ratio.

Cases Referred (2)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R.N. Singh, Member (J), B. Anand, Member (A)
Prakash Pant – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 2586/2019