Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 25792
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Pallavi Gupta – Respondent
W.P.(C) 14908/2022 | W.P.(C) 16852/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Ms. Pinky Pawar, Mr. Aakash Pathak
For the Respondents: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Mr. Nishant Bahuguna, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Shikha John, Mr. Shivam Garg, Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Mr. Omkar Jayant Deshpande
In the case of direct recruitment through interviews, inter-se seniority is determined by the date of the recruitment agency's recommendation. Candidates appointed from a Reserve List are deemed junior to those in the Main List regardless of merit marks or actual date of joining.
Headnote:(A) Seniority - Inter-se seniority between Main List candidates and Reserve List candidates - Recruitment through interview - Determination of seniority based on date of recommendation letter vs. marks obtained - Held, candidates from the Reserve List are to be placed below the Main List candidates - Seniority for direct recruits through interviews is determined by the date of the Commission's letter of recommendation - Candidates from the Reserve List, even with higher marks, cannot claim seniority over the Main List candidates recommended earlier. (Paras 34, 38, 39)
Facts of the case:
The Respondents were recruited as Assistant Director/Deputy Director, Operations based on recommendations from a Reserve List, after some candidates from the Main List did not join. The Respondents challenged the Final Seniority Lists, claiming they should be ranked based on higher marks obtained in the selection process, relying on certain Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandums (OMs). The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Respondents, directing the recasting of the seniority list.
Findings of Court:
The Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, noting that the tribunal relied on decisions that had been set aside or diluted. It clarified that seniority between Main List and Reserve List candidates is governed by the date of recommendation, and candidates from the Main list rank senior to those from the Reserve List regardless of marks or date of joining.
Issues: Whether candidates appointed from a Reserve List are entitled to seniority over candidates in the Main List based on marks obtained in the selection process.
Ratio Decidendi: Seniority for direct recruits selected via interviews is determined by the date of the recruitment agency's recommendation letter. Reserve List candidates fill vacancies caused by non-joining and are placed after the Main List candidates who were recommended earlier in the selection process.
Result: Appeals allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the dispute regarding seniority list preparation for assistant and deputy directors. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments based on dopt instructions regarding reserve panel seniority. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. petitioners' argument that seniority is decided by the date of recommendation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. respondents' argument that merit marks should determine inter-se seniority. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. court rules that seniority is determined by the date of the recommendation letter, rejecting merit-based claims. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
J U D G M E N T
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the Union of India through its functionaries, Ministry of Civil Aviation / Director General of Civil Aviation challenging the common order dated March 24, 2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi („Tribunal‟, for short) in Original Application Nos.1776/2020 and 130/2020 („OA‟, for short) whereby the Tribunal has disposed of both the OAs directing the petitioners herein to re-fix the seniority of the respondent No.1 in W.P.(C) 14908/2022 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.(C) 16852/2022 at the appropriate place by taking into account the marks obtained by them in the selection process to the post of Assistant Director, Operations and Deputy Director, Operations respectively, by issuing a revised Seniority List.
FACTUAL MATRIX OF W.P.(C) 14908/2022
2. In the year 2014, the Union Public Service Commission („UPSC‟, for short) / respondent No.6, invited applications for filling up 44 posts (17-UR, 16-OBC, 8-SC and 3-ST) of Assistant Director, Operations vide advertisement No.09/2004. Subsequent to the interviews conducted, the UPSC recommended successful candidates for appointment. It so happened that some persons who were recommended did not join the post, resulting in the petitioners approaching the UPSC for recommending other candidates to the post. The UPSC through its letter dated May 17, 2016 operated the Reserve List and recommended the names of six candidates, including the respondent No. 1 for being appointed as Assistant Director, Operations. A provisional Seniority List was issued on November 26, 2019, wherein according to the respondent No. 1, she was placed below the persons who had scored less than her in the selection. Aggrieved by her position in the provisional Seniority List, the respondent No. 1 made a detailed representation for correction of her position. The said representation was rejected by the petitioners herein on October 1, 2020, when they issued a Final Seniority List wherein the respondent No. 1 was again placed below candidates from the Main List who had obtained lesser marks in the selection process. It is against this Final Seniority List that the respondent No. 1 approached the Tribunal.
FACTUAL MATRIX OF W.P.(C) 16852/2022
3. Subsequent to reporting of vacancies to the UPSC (respondent No. 5 in this petition) by the petitioner No.2, the UPSC invited applications to the post of Deputy Director, Operations for filling up eight posts (5-UR, 2-OBC and 1-SC). The UPSC on January 28, 2016 recommended seven candidates for appointment. Further as the candidate recommended at serial No.4 in the Main List did not join the service, nomination/recommendation from the Reserve List was sought for by the petitioners. The UPSC vide communication dated August 23, 2016 recommended respondent No.1 from the Reserve List, who joined the service on October 28, 2016. Subsequently, as the candidate at serial No.5 in the Main List refused to join, another nomination was sought from the UPSC, which recommended respondent No.2 from the Reserve List. After completion of formalities, respondent No.2 joined the service from March 31, 2017.
4. On June 04, 2019, a provisional Seniority List for the post of
