2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6664

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, J, Sumeet Jerath, A
5687/2017
O.A. No. 2569/2017

Seniority of direct recruits to a post requiring a mandatory departmental examination during probation is to be reckoned from the date of confirmation after passing that examination, not from the date of initial appointment.

Headnote:(A) Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Challenge to determination of seniority and promotion - The dispute pertained to whether seniority of direct recruits to the post of Section Officer (Accounts) should be counted from the date of initial appointment or from the date of confirmation after passing a mandatory departmental examination (SAS). The Recruitment Rules and appointment letters stipulated that seniority would be fixed from the date the direct recruit takes charge as a regular Section Officer after passing the examination, and failure to pass would lead to discharge. The Court held the date of seniority is to be reckoned from the date of confirmation in the service (after passing the departmental SAS Examination) and not from the date of first appointment. (Paras 2, 4, 6)

(B) Service Law - Seniority - Confirmation - Probation - Departmental Examination - The principle that once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rules, seniority must be counted from the date of appointment and not from the date of confirmation was discussed. However, the Court found the recruitment process here was conditional, as candidates were designated as 'SAS Apprentices' and were required to pass a mandatory departmental examination during probation, failing which they were liable to be discharged. The Court ruled that reckoning seniority from the date of confirmation after passing the examination was valid. (Paras 2, 4, 6)

(C) Practice and Procedure - Judicial discipline - The Coordinate Bench followed the decisions of other Benches of the same Tribunal where similar Original Applications were dismissed. (Para 7)

Facts of the case:
The applicants were selected via the Staff Selection Commission for the post of Section Officer (Accounts) in the Defence Accounts Department. They were appointed during 1998-1999 as 'SAS Apprentices' on probation. They were required to pass the Departmental Subordinate Accounts Service (SAS) Examination during probation, failing which they were liable for discharge. After passing the examination, they were confirmed as Section Officers (Accounts). A dispute arose because the respondents fixed their seniority from the date of confirmation (after passing the SAS examination) and not from the date of initial appointment, which the applicants challenged.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that reckoning seniority from the date of confirmation in the service was correct, given the specialized nature of the work and the mandatory condition of passing the SAS examination during probation. The Court noted that without such knowledge, work efficiency would be hampered, and failure to pass the examination would lead to discharge. The Court also found the decision to be in line with previous Coordinate Bench rulings dismissing similar cases.

Issues: The main issue was whether the seniority of direct recruits to the post of Section Officer (Accounts) should be counted from the date of initial appointment or from the date of confirmation after passing the mandatory departmental examination.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that since the appointment was conditional and the candidates were designated as 'SAS Apprentices', and their confirmation and regular service depended on passing a specialized departmental examination, the date of seniority is to be reckoned from the date of confirmation in the service and not from the date of first appointment.

Result: The Original Application was dismissed. All pending MAs were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. (Para 8) Dissent: None. Parties: Twenty-three applicants (recruits) versus the Controller General of Defence Accounts and others (employer). Named entities have been excluded as instructed. Applicants: The twenty-three individual applicants. Respondents: The Controller General of Defence Accounts and the Ministry of Defence. Alternative Viewpoints: The applicants argued that seniority should be counted from the date of initial appointment, citing the principle that once an incumbent is appointed according to rules, seniority runs from that date. The respondents argued that the appointment was conditional and that the period as an apprentice cannot be counted for seniority. The Court rejected the applicants' view.