TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioners above the private respondents. The fact that the CAT decision would impact the inter se seniority between the promotees and direct recruits (petitioners), is not the subject matter of the present petition, and therefore, need not be examined. It is also an admitted position that in the present case requisitions for the appointment of the petitioners were sent to SSC the recruiting authority on 11th February, 2015, after the private respondents had already joined the Delhi Commissionerate. Therefore, even in terms of OM dated 4th March, 2014, the petitioners cannot be placed above the private respondents. Petition dismissed. - W.P.(C) 3576/2021 - - - Dated:- 19-4-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL Petitioners: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ayush Anand, Mr. Shubhendu Anand, Mr. Mrinal Elker, Mr. Viplav Acharya Mr. Shikhar Kishore, Advocates Respondents: Mr. Gaurang Kanth, CGSC with Mr. Amit Dogra, G.P., Ms. Biji Rajesh and Mr. Shreesh Chadha, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Harpreet Singh with Mr. Arunesh Sharma Ms. Suhani Mathur, Advocates JUDGMENT AMIT BANSAL, J. C.M. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018. On 5th August, 2019, the official respondents amended the RRs with regard to promotion of Inspectors to the post of Superintendents. On 16th September, 2019, the private respondents withdrew OA No.1251/2019 with liberty to file fresh OA. On 30th September, 2019, fresh OA No.2955/2019 was filed by the private respondents challenging the seniority list dated 15th March, 2018, from which the present petition arises. The main ground of challenge in the said OA was that the petitioners who had joined the department after the joining of the private respondents cannot be placed above them in the seniority list. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh Ors. Vs. Ningam Siro Ors., (2020) 5 SCC 689, in which the earlier judgment of N.R. Parmar (supra) was overruled. The said OA was contested by both, the official respondents as well as the petitioners herein by filing counter affidavits. 7. The said OA 2955/2019 was allowed by the Tribunal vide the impugned order and the seniority list dated 15th March, 2018, to the extent it placed petitioners who were appointed and joined Delhi Commissionerate subsequent to the date of the tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aining 259 vacancies were to be filled up through direct recruitment quota; (v) the process for recruitment of 259 Inspectors on direct recruitment basis started on 2nd September, 2014; (vi) on 7th December, 2014, 240 more vacancies were made available to be filled through direct recruitment quota and 120 through promotion quota; (vii) the petitioners qualified the SSC (CGL) Examination, 2014 against the vacancies for 2014 and were appointed as Inspectors on direct recruitment basis in the Delhi zone in 2016; (viii) on 15th March, 2018, the respondents finalized the seniority list of Inspectors upto 31st March, 2015, in which the name of the private respondents was below the petitioners. 10. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioners has strenuously argued that the impugned order of the CAT is erroneous as it fails to consider that, while preparing seniority list, the recruitment year of the candidates is relevant and not the year in which they join the cadre. The seniority list impugned before CAT was prepared strictly in terms of OM dated 4th March, 2014 which was based on N.R. Parmar judgment (supra). Relevant provisions of the OM dated 4th March, 2014 relied on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 3.7.1986 and defends the OM dated 4th March, 2014, in terms of which the official respondents have correctly drawn the seniority list. 14. Per contra, Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the petitioners have wrongly stated that the private respondents are transferees. In reality, the said transferees are also direct recruits of the year 2011 and therefore have a right to be interspersed with the promotees of 2015. He further submits that the private respondents were placed at the bottom of the promotees and the direct recruits of 2014. Prior to the cadre re-structuring, the number of vacancies available for Inspectors in direct recruitment quota was only 12. Only after cadre re-structuring in October, 2014, the vacancies became 561. So, cadre re-structuring benefitted petitioners also inasmuch as posts for direct recruits increased. Requisitions to fill in direct recruitment vacancy were sent to SSC only after they had joined Delhi Zone. It was contended that the N.R. Parmar judgment (supra) was not applicable because the said judgment dealt with seniority between direct recruits and promotees, whereas the controversy in the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the CAT, challenging the said seniority list, from which the present petition arises. In fact, OA was also filed before the judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh judgment (supra) was delivered. Therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the petitioners to say that the seniority position was settled and therefore the same has to be protected in terms of the judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh judgment (supra). Accordingly, once the seniority list itself was subject matter of challenge before CAT, the law laid down in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) had to be applied. The following paragraphs from the judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) may be referred to:- 37. When we carefully read the judgment in N.R.Parmar, it appears to us that the referred OMs (dated 7-2-1986 and 3-7-1986) were not property construed in the judgment. Contrary to the eventual finding, the said two OMs had made it clear that seniority of the direct recruits be declared only from the date of appointment and not from the date of initiation of recruitment process. But surprisingly, the judgment while referring to the illustration given in the OM in fact overlooks the effect of the said illustrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clared in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik and consequently we disapprove the norms on assessment of inter se seniority, suggested in N.R. Parmar. Accordingly, the decision in N.R. Parmar is overruled. However, it is made clear that this decision will not affect the inter se seniority already based on N.R. Parmar and the same is protected. This decision will apply prospectively except where seniority is to be fixed under the relevant rules from the date of vacancy/the date of advertisement. 17. From a reading of the above passages, the dicta of the Hon ble Supreme Court that emerges, can be summarized, as below:- (i) OMs dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986 were not properly construed in the N.R. Parmar (supra) judgment. The said OMs made it clear that seniority of direct recruits had to be fixed from the date of appointment and not from the date of initiation of recruitment process; (ii) Persons aspiring to be appointed to a vacant post do not have any vested right. Only upon completion of the selection process, a candidate becomes a selected candidate and therefore, the finding in N.R. Parmar (supra) that the selected candidate cannot be blamed for administrative delay, was not correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
