Back
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
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Seniority and Promotion
Act Referred
Headnote
(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.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nitin Sharma
For the Respondents: Arvind Moudgil, Sr. Adv. with T.S. Hundal, Yandasi
| 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
