Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 376
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rekha Palli, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ
PRASHANT KUMAR SONA & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS – Respondent
W.P.(C)-4339/2020
Mr.Ankur Chibber, Adv., Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv., Mr.Anshuman Mehrotra, Mr.Rohan Mandal, Advs., Mr.M. K. Bhardwaj, Ms.Priyanka M Bhardwaj, Mr.Mariya Mugesh Kannan, Advs., Mr.V.C.Shukla, Mr.Mukul Rathore, Mr.Siddharth Relan, Advs., Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Lekh Raj Singh, Advs. for UPSC, Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC, Mr.Ajith Joshuo, Adv., Mr Padma Kumar S, Adv.
The court affirmed that seniority cannot be granted retrospectively unless explicitly allowed by service rules, emphasizing adherence to the prescribed quota for promotions.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ petitions challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal quashing the seniority list of Section Officers and directing a fresh seniority list to be prepared without retrospective seniority for LDCE promoted officers - The Tribunal found that the MEA Rules do not permit retrospective seniority for LDCE candidates appointed after a significant delay in holding examinations. (Paras 2, 6, 22, 24, 36)
(B) Seniority - Determination of inter se seniority between promotees and LDCE candidates - The court emphasized that seniority must be determined based on actual promotion dates, especially when the quota rule had broken down due to delays in conducting LDCEs. (Paras 20, 30, 34)
(C) Legal Principles - The principle that seniority cannot be granted retrospectively unless expressly provided by service rules was reiterated, along with the importance of adhering to the prescribed quota for promotions. (Paras 18, 19, 32)
Facts of the case:
The writ petitions were filed against the Tribunal's order that quashed the seniority list of Section Officers, allowing LDCE candidates to be promoted only from their actual promotion dates, not from earlier vacancy years.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal correctly held that the MEA Rules do not allow retrospective seniority for LDCE candidates appointed after significant delays, ensuring fairness to promotees who had been serving longer.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Tribunal erred in denying retrospective seniority to LDCE candidates and the applicability of the MEA Rules regarding seniority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the MEA Rules do not provide for retrospective seniority and that the quota rule had effectively broken down due to delays in LDCEs.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
1. The present writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1719/2012. Since the challenge in the two writ petitions is to the same impugned order, we are for the sake of convenience, referring to the parties as per their position in W.P.(C) No. 4339/2020.
2. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the Original Application (O.A.) filed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as private respondents) and has therefore quashed the seniority list of Section Officers (hereinafter referred to as SO) issued on 17.01.2012 along with orders dated 02.05.2012 & 16.05.2012, whereby the representations of these private respondents were rejected. The Tribunal has, consequently, directed the respondent nos. 1 to 3/ Union of India (hereinafter referred to as official respondents) to prepare a fresh seniority list of SOs in such a way that no SO promoted through the Limited Departmental Competitive Exam (LDCE) is treated as having been promoted with effect from any date, earlier to the date of his actual promotion. At this stage itself, it may be noted that the official respondents have not assailed the impugned order and it is only the SOs promoted through LDCE in the year 2011 and granted retrospective seniority from the date of accrual of vacancy, who are aggrieved with the impugned order.
3. Before we deal with the rival submissions of the parties, the brief factual matrix as emerging from the record may be noted.
4. The private respondents belonging to the integrated Grades II & III of the General Cadre of Indian Foreign Service (Branch B) were promoted to the post of SOs on 18.05.2005 and 05.05.2011 respectively. As per Rule 13 of the Indian Foreign Service Branch B (Recruitment Cadre, Seniority and Promotion) Rules 1964 (hereinafter referred to as MEA Rules) promotions to the post of SO are made from two sources; with 80% of the posts earmarked for promotion and 20% to be filed through LDCE. It is the common case of the parties that while the promotions under the 80% quota were being regularly held year-wise, promotions under the LDCE quota, though being regularly held till the year 2005, the examination for the vacancy years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, was held only in 2010 and consequently promotions through the LDCE were made in 2011 against the vacancies for all the four years. This, it is the case of the petitioners, who as noted hereinabove were appointed as SOs under the LDCE quota, was on account of the restraint order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4876/2007, which order, it is claimed was vacated only on 25.05.2009.
5. Taking into account that promotions to the post of SO were being made from two different sources, the official respondents were, from time to time, issuing seniority list by placing the SOs promoted through the two sources as per their respective quotas. It appears that a provisional seniority list was issued in 2007, to which respondent no. 4, who had been promoted as SO on 18.05.2005, objected but received no response thereto from the official respondents. Consequently, a final seniority list was issued on 17.01.2012, wherein the respondent no.5, who had been promoted as SO on 05.05.2011 was placed below such persons, who had been appointed/promoted as SOs in September and October, 2011 on the basis of the LDCE held in the year 2010 against vacancies pertaining to the year 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. It may be noted that the result of this LDCE held in 2010 was declared only in the year 2011.
6. Upon realizing that various candidates, who had been promoted to the post of SO through the LDCE pertaining to the year 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, had been granted retrospective seniority with reference to the year in which the vacancy under the LDCE quota had arisen, the private respondents submitted detailed representations dated 17.02.2012
