Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2686

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ramesh Singh Thakur, Judicial Member, Rashmi Saxena Sahni, Administrative Member
Anil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Chandigarh administration – Respondent
Original Application

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nitin Sharma
For the Respondents: Arvind Moudgil, Sr. Adv. with T.S. Hundal, Yandasi

Waiting list candidates appointed against original recruitment vacancies due to non-joining by main list candidates entitled to deemed date of appointment at par with last appointee from same process, with notional seniority and benefits excluding salary arrears.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Punjab Police Rules - Rule 12.2 - Service law - Seniority and deemed date of appointment - Constables selected from waiting list against vacancies arising from non-joining of main list candidates in same recruitment process for 150 posts - Entitled to deemed date of appointment at par with last candidate appointed from same selection, with consequential benefits of seniority, promotion, fixation, pensionary benefits, gratuity excluding arrears of salary - Delay in joining not attributable to candidates - Rule 12.2 providing seniority from date of joining held inapplicable where appointment against original notified vacancies without fresh advertisement or separate process. (Paras 21, 25, 26, 27)

(B) Service jurisprudence - Parity in same recruitment process - Candidates from waiting list appointed against same advertised vacancies cannot be denied notional benefits merely for later joining - Administrative lapse in not offering timely appointment from waiting list cannot penalize candidates - Judicial precedents binding for similarly situated employees. (Paras 22-26)

Facts of the case:
Applicants, constables placed in waiting list for recruitment to 150 posts advertised in 2009, appointed against vacancies due to non-joining by main list candidates, joined on 04.05.2010 while main list joined on 11.09.2009. Denied deemed date of appointment, seniority parity, and promotion benefits; juniors from separate recruitment promoted ahead.

Findings of Court:
Impugned orders denying parity set aside; deemed date of appointment granted at par with last candidate from same recruitment; service from deemed date counted for fixation, pension, gratuity, retiral dues; seniority re-fixed; promotion consideration from date immediate junior considered; no arrears of salary.

Issues: Whether waiting list candidates appointed against original vacancies entitled to deemed date of appointment and parity with main list candidates from same selection process despite later joining.

Ratio Decidendi: Where vacancies arise from original advertisement due to non-joining, and waiting list candidates appointed without fresh process, they cannot be denied deemed benefits; supported by precedents emphasizing no penalty for administrative delay not attributable to candidates.

Result: Original Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. applicants challenge denial of deemed appointment and seniority from 2009 recruitment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. repeated representations ignored; juniors promoted despite applicants' claims. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. applicants entitled to parity with batchmates per judicial precedents. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. respondents defend: waiting list joiners senior from actual joining date. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. rejoinder: waiting list candidates entitled to same recruitment parity. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
6. undisputed: applicants appointed against same 2009 vacancies. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
7. precedents grant deemed appointment to waiting list candidates. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
8. waiting list appointees get deemed date, notional benefits sans salary arrears. (Para 26 , 27)
9. oa disposed; grant deemed appointment and refix seniority. (Para 28)

O R D E R

Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

1. The present Original Application filed under S ection 1 9 o f t he Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is directed against a ction o f t he respondents in not p romoting the applicants along w ith t heir b atch o f 150 constables in the pay scale of Rs. 3120-5160 i n v iew o f advertisement Annexure A-1, not granting benefit o f s ervice w ith o ther similarly s ituated constables towards seniority and g ratuity, a nd f urther not giving the applicants deemed date of appointment a s g iven t o t he last candidate appointed against 2009 selection of 1 50 c onstables v ide Annexure A-1. The a pplicants have prayed that i mpugned A nnexures A-9 and A-12 be quashed and set aside, and respondents b e d irected t o grant applicants their claim of deemed appointment a s g iven t o l ast selected candidate under the 2009 constable recruitment a long w ith subsequent benefit of promotion, seniority and gratuity.

2. Facts of the case are as follows. The applicants w ere r ecruited pursuant t o advertisement Annexure A-1 issued by t he r espondents f or filling up 150 posts of Constable in Chandigarh Police i n t he p ay s cale o f Rs. 3120-5160. The applicants participated in the s election p rocess a nd were ultimately issued appointment letters. They j oined s ervice a s Constables with effect from 04.05.2010. It is averred t hat d uring t he same r ecruitment c ycle period, another recruitment p rocess w as initiated by the respondents for filling up 675 posts o f C onstables i n t he India Reserve Battalion (IRB), for which applications w ere i nvited o n 17.05.2009 and written examination was conducted o n 2 6.07.2009. T he applicants assert that though they belonged to t he e arlier s election process relating to 150 Constable posts, subsequent a dministrative actions resulted in denial of parity of service b enefits w ith t heir batchmates and similarly situated candidates.

3. The grievance of the applicants is that despite b eing p art o f t he 2009 recruitment process relating to 150 Constable p osts, t hey w ere n ot granted the deemed date of appointment which was e xtended t o o ther candidates of the same selection. It is their case that t he l ast c andidate selected under the said recruitment was granted a d eemed d ate o f appointment for the purpose of determining seniority a nd s ervice benefits, but similar benefit was not extended to the applicants.

4. The a pplicants submitted representation d ated 2 7.07.2020 seeking fixation of their seniority along with their b atchmates r ecruited under the 2009 selection. However, the respondents d id n ot g rant t he relief sought. Thereafter, the respondents issued i mpugned S tanding Order N o. 81/2015 dated 25.01.2022 (Annexure A -9) c oncerning promotion and seniority of Constables to the rank o f S enior C onstable. The applicants assert that in the said order they o ught t o h ave b een placed at Serial Nos. 108 to 110 based on their recruitment b atch a nd length of service.

5. Aggrieved, the applicants sought information u nder t he R ight t o Information Act by filing application dat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2686

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALRamesh Singh Thakur, Judicial Member, Rashmi Saxena Sahni, Administrative MemberAnil Kumar – AppellantVersusChandigarh administration – RespondentOriginal Application

Waiting list candidates appointed against original recruitment vacancies due to non-joining by main list candidates entitled to deemed date of appointment at par with last appointee from same process, with notional seniority and benefits excluding salary arrears.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ramesh Singh Thakur, Judicial Member, Rashmi Saxena Sahni, Administrative Member
Anil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Chandigarh administration – Respondent
Original Application