$~97 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10847/2022, CM APPLs. 31533/2022 & 31534/2022 MS ANJU CHAWLA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Dharmendra Kishor and Mr. Ashutosh Tiwari, Advs.

versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel, GNCTD with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs. for R-1 to 3 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN JUDGMENT(ORAL)

% 16.10.2024 C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The petitioners were the respondents before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi1 in OA

733/2021.

2. Respondents 5 to 132 in the present writ petition were employed in schools under the Directorate of Education, Government of

1 “the learned Tribunal”, hereinafter

2 hereinafter collectively “the respondents”

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10847/2024 Page 1 of 7 By:HARVINDER KAUR National Capital Territory of Delhi3. They had initially been appointed as Post Graduate Teachers in various subjects and had been successively promoted as Vice-Principal and thereafter as Principal, between the years 2010 and 2012, against vacancies pertaining to the years 2005-06 to 2008-09. The post of Principal, as per the applicable Recruitment Rules, was to be filled 50% by direct recruitment and

50% by promotion.

3. During the years 2014 and 2017, i.e., much after the respondents have been promoted to the post of Principal, the present petitioners were directly recruited as Principal.

4. Following this, a tentative seniority list was issued on 5 November 2018, in which the respondents, who had been promoted as Principal prior in point of time to the direct recruitment of the petitioners as Principal, were shown above the petitioners. In other words, the earlier promotes were shown senior to the later Direct Recruits4. This, according to the respondents, represented the correct seniority position, as it was based on the date of entry in the cadre of Principal, whether as DR or as promotee. An earlier entrant was shown as senior to a later entrant.

5. Eight years thereafter, however, a fresh seniority list of Principals came to be circulated by the DOE on 3 November 2020. In the said seniority list, the petitioners (the later DRs) were placed above the respondents (the earlier promotees).

3 “the DOE, GNCTD” hereinafter

4 “DRs” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10847/2024 Page 2 of 7 By:HARVINDER KAUR

6. Aggrieved thereby, the promotee respondents instituted OA 733/2021 before the learned Tribunal, submitting that, as they had been promoted and had joined as Principal much prior to the DR petitioners, the petitioners could not be placed above them, by according them seniority from dates on which they had not even been born on the cadre of Principal.

7. Before the learned Tribunal, it was an admitted position that the seniority, in the seniority list dated 3 November 2020, had been fixed on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI v N.R.

Parmar5.

8. The learned Tribunal has, by the impugned judgment, noted that the decision in Parmar was overruled by the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh v Ningam Siro6, which holds that the seniority, whether of DRs or promotees, has to be reckoned from the date on which the concerned officer or employee joins her, or his, post, whether as a DR or as a promotee, and becomes part of the cadre, and cannot be reckoned from any earlier date. The Supreme Court specifically held that the seniority of direct recruits could not be granted from dates on which they were not even borne on the cadre and held the decision to that effect, as contained in Parmar, not to be correct law.

5 (2012) 13 SCC 340 6 (2020) 5 SCC 689 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10847/2024 Page 3 of 7 By:HARVINDER KAUR

9. While so holding, the Supreme Court, in para 39 of