9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s allowed and the seniority list dated 15th March, 2018, which was the subject matter of challenge before the CAT, was set aside. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, who were the respondents before the CAT. 4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are set out hereinafter. 5. The petitioners herein were appointed as Inspectors in the Delhi Commissionerate of the respondents in the year 2016 under the direct recruit quota. The private respondents (who were the petitioners before the CAT) were also direct recruits recruited in the year 2011 in various zones outside Delhi. At their request, they were transferred to the Delhi Zone in the year 2014. On 31.07.2014, there was a substantial re-structuring in the department, resulting in steep increase in the number of posts of Inspectors in Delhi Zone. On account of the increase in number of vacancies, the private respondents took a transfer to Delhi Commissionerate from their parent cadre and were placed at the bottom of the seniority list. The petitioners who were appointed on direct recruitment basis against the vacancies for the year of 2014, joined cadre only in the year 2016. On 15th March, 2018, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be placed in the seniority after directly recruited Inspectors of the year 2014 on the principle that whoever comes on transfer has to take the last place in the seniority in the zone, to which he comes on transfer; (iv) since the petitioners as well as the private respondents were direct recruits, the judgment in N.R. Parmar (supra) would have no impact on them; (v) there was no basis or justification to place the petitioners, who were appointed in the year 2016, above the private respondents in the Delhi zone; and (vi) the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar (supra) has been overruled by the Supreme Court judgment in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra). Hence, the OA was allowed and the seniority list dated 15th March, 2018 was set aside to the extent it placed the petitioners above the private respondents. 8. Aggrieved by the said decision of the CAT, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. With the consent of the parties, the petition has been taken up for final disposal on the basis of the pleadings filed by the parties before the CAT. 9. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been argued by Ms. Maninder Acharya, Senior Advocate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was further submitted that on the date the said seniority list was prepared, N.R. Parmar judgment (supra) of the Supreme Court held the field and therefore, the seniority list was correctly prepared on the basis of the said judgment. The said judgment was overruled by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme court in K. Meghachandra Singh judgment (supra), which was delivered on 13th November, 2019, however, the said overruling was prospective and therefore, seniority already decided in terms of N.R. Parmar (supra) would be protected. Reliance is also placed on the transfer order dated 20th April, 2013 in respect of the private respondents wherein it is specifically noted that transferee officers will be placed below all officers appointed regularly to the post/grade in terms of para 3.5 of the DoP&T's OM dated 3.7.1986. The said Clause 3.5 of the OM dated 3.7.1986 is set out below:- "3.5 In cases in which transfers are not strictly in public interest, the transferred officers will be placed below all officers appointed regularly to the grade on the date of absorption." 12. It was further contended by the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that if the directions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate by direct recruitment or promotion, which is not the case here. He further states that the seniority position was not settled when the K. Meghachandra Singh judgment (supra) was delivered, as the private respondents had filed objections against the seniority list of 15th March, 2018 and further had challenged the same before the CAT before the K. Meghachandra Singh judgment (supra) was delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it is wrong to state that the seniority position was settled. 15. In rejoinder, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that (i) private respondents may be direct recruits, but not for the purposes of Delhi Commissionerate; (ii) promotees and direct recruits sink and sail together and therefore, cannot be separated in the seniority list; (iii) the petitioners who were borne elsewhere have to come after the promotees and the direct recruits and cannot be sandwiched between them; (iv) the judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) protected the inter se seniority based on N.R. Parmar (supra); (v) when the petitioners applied for transfer, there were no posts available under the Delhi Commissionerate; and, (vi) CAT did not examine the asp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Court in N.R. Parmar need not have observed that the selected candidate cannot be blamed for administrative delay and the gap between the initiation of process and appointment. Such observation is fallacious inasmuch as none can be identified as being a selected candidate on the date when the process of recruitment had commenced. On that day, a body of persons aspiring to be appointed to the vacancy intended for direct recruits was not in existence. The persons who might respond to an advertisement cannot have any service-related rights, not to talk of right to have their seniority counted from the date of the advertisement. In other words, only on completion of the process, the applicant morphs into a selected candidate and, therefore, unnecessary observation was made in N.R. Parmar to the effect that the selected candidate cannot be blamed for the administrative delay. In the same context, we may usefully refer to the ratio in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, where it was held that even upon empanelment, an appointee does not acquire any right. 39. The judgment in N.R. Parmar relating to the Central Government employees cannot in our opinion, automatically apply to the Man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
