$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 970/2021, CM APPLs. 2620/2021, 10122/2021, 10838/2021, 53363/2022, 53364/2022, 53365/2022, 10526/2023, 10527/2023, 12863/2023 & 58225/2023 SANTOSH VITTHALRAO INDRAKSHA & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jay Savla, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sameer Kumar and Mr. Vaibhav Pachauri, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr.

Amit Kumar Rana, Advs. for UOI Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Mr. Mahinder Singh Hura, Mr. Saif Ali, Mr. Pushpendra S. Bhadoriya, Mr. Vijay Sharma, Mr. Pranav Menon, Mr. Ajith Williyam S. and Mr.

Saurav, Advs. for R-6, R-7, R-9 & R-11 Mr. M.K. Madan and Mr. Gunit Shah, Advs.

for R-15 Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj and Ms. Sakshi Saugat, Advs. for R-10 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 02.04.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. Respondents 6 to 16, 1“theprivaterespondents”hereinafter were appointed as Technical Officers in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in 2015. They were promoted as Assistant Drug Controllers, 2“ADCs”,hereinafter on 1 May 2015.

2. As against this, the petitioners were appointed as ADCs by direct recruitment between the years 2016 and 2018.

3. On 8 April 2016, the official respondents drew up a provisional seniority list in which the petitioners were placed above the private respondents. The private respondents represented against the said seniority list. The representation was rejected on 25 June 2019. The private respondents thereafter petitioned the Central Administrative Tribunal³ by way of OA 2001/2019, claiming that they were entitled to seniority above the petitioners as their appointment, on promotion, was prior to the date when the petitioners were appointed as direct recruits.

4. The petitioners, as the respondents before the Tribunal, contended on the other hand that they had been directly recruited against vacancies of 2014, at which time the private respondents were not even eligible for promotion and that, therefore, they were entitled to seniority over the private respondents.

5. The Tribunal has, by judgment dated 13 October 2020, allowed the private respondents’ OA and set aside the seniority list dated 8 April 2016. The Tribunal has held the private respondents to be entitled to seniority over the petitioners.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.

7. We have heard Mr. Jay Savla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, learned CGSC for the Union of India, Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Mr. M.K. Madan and Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the respondents at length.

8. Mr. Savla has taken us through the sequence of events in the present case. He points out that the petitioners were eligible for direct recruitment as ADCs in 2014 but that, as their selection was challenged by some of the private respondents before the Allahabad Bench and the Principal Bench of the Tribunal Allahabad Bench and before the High Court of Calcutta, there was a stay on their selection process, as a result of which their appointments got delayed. It was only after the stay was vacated by the Calcutta High Court that the selection process culminated in the appointments of the petitioners. He, therefore, invokes the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit, to contend that a party cannot be prejudiced by the act of Court. He also submits that, having themselves filed a misconceived petition challenging the petitioners’ selection, the private respondents cannot seek to take advantage of the said fact and claim seniority over the petitioners merely because the petitioners came to be appointed after

3“theTribunal”hereinafter

the private respondents.

9. Mr. Savla has also placed reliance on Office Memorandum dated 4 March 2014, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, 5“DOPT”,hereinafter. He has particularly drawn our attention to paragraphs 5 (a)

to (e) an