Settled seniority cannot be retrospectively disturbed by review DPCs switching to post-based roster; vacancy-based DoPT methodology prevails over unamended RRs; protect pre-2015 promotee seniority and apply rotation within recruitment years.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

By way of the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(i) Allow this Original Application.

(ii) Declare the act of respondents in reverting to post-based roster in place of vacancy-based roster, already in vogue, for unsettling Seniority List as on 01.01.2015 of the applicants from retrospective period from 2001 to 2018 in contravention to DOP&T OM dated 19.01.2007 as illegal, biased, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of relevant provisions & non est in the eyes of law.

(iii) Set aside/quash impugned Review DPC held on 25.04.2023 vide Notice F. No. II (34)/1/Estt/SL- Insp/2020-937 and impugned Seniority List of Inspector as on 01.04.2013, issued therewith, and subsequent orders issued consequently.

(iv) Pass an order directing respondents to keep pre- revised Seniority List of Inspector as on 01.01.2015 intact and promote the applicants to the post of Superintendent considering the same.

(v) Pass any other order/direction as may be deemed just & proper in the light of facts & circumstances of the case as submitted herein above.”

2. The applicants had filed M.A. No. 3407 of 2024 seeking interim relief. It was their case that the respondents had issued the impugned seniority list dated 01.04.2013 (Annexure A-1) pursuant to the revised DPC held on 25.04.2023, which, according to them, was in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar & Anr., (1999) 2 SCC 330. On that basis, the applicants sought a direction restraining the respondents from proceeding further with promotions to the post of Superintendent from the Inspector cadre on the strength of the said seniority list. It was further their case that the respondents were continuing the process by convening a review DPC for promotion to the post of Superintendent and had also issued a draft seniority list of Inspectors as on 01.01.2024.

2.1 By an interim order dated 17.09.2024, the Bench of this Tribunal, as an ad-interim measure, clarified that any promotion made from the post of Inspector to the post of Superintendent on the basis of the revised impugned seniority list of Inspectors as on 01.04.2013 (Annexure A-1) shall remain subject to the outcome of the present O.A.

2.2 The principal issue that arises for consideration in the present matter is whether the respondents are required to adopt a post-based roster or a vacancy-based roster for the purpose of effecting promotions to the post of Superintendent.

2.3 It was contended on behalf of the applicants that the application of a post-based roster is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in All India Federation of Central Excise vs. Union of India, the relevant paragraph of which reads as under:

"A like situation arose in State of Punjab & Others vs. Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar & another [1998 (6) SCALE 642]. That was again a case of recruitment by promotion to the posts of Professors from the category of Additional Professors and also by way of direct recruitment, in the ratio of 3:1. The Additional Professors, who represented the promotee feeder group having a quota of 3 vacancies in the cadre of Professors contended that whenever a Professor retired, one has to find out whether he was a promotee or a direct recruit. If the vacancy was created by retirement of a promotee, then the said vacancy in the promotional cadre had to filled only by a promotee from the lower cadre and not by way of direct recruitment. Reliance for the said contention was placed by the promotees on Sabharwal's case which case. This Court distinguished Sabharwal's Case as relating to a scheme of reservation and observed that in a system of quota between promotees and direct recruits, once the posts in the higher cadre were filled, thereafter if vacancies arose (say) by retirements, then it was not permissible to treat t