The Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court delved into the complexities of determining seniority for individuals appointed through delayed selections, highlighting the importance of legal analysis in resolving disputes. The case involves a discussion on the interpretation of rules regarding the seniority of candidates appointed from a select panel in 1983 but joining in 1987/1988. The courts’ analysis focuses on maintaining fairness and consistency in seniority determination, providing crucial insights into the legal principles governing such cases.
Facts
- Candidates appointed from the select panel of June 1983 claim seniority with counterparts appointed in the same selection process.
- Candidates argue for seniority in order of merit, regardless of date of joining as per OM issued by Government of India in 1986.
- Appointments made from June 1983 select list in Western Command took place between April 1987 to April 1988.
- Respondents determined seniority based on date of joining, contrary to candidates’ claim.
Also Read: Recovery of Misappropriated Temple Funds: Court’s Legal Analysis
Issue
- Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, discussed the issue of determining seniority for applicants approved in the panel in 1983 but appointed in 1987/1988.
- The question arose whether the seniority should be based on the order of merit in the select panel of 1983 or from the date of their actual appointment.
- Specific individuals involved in the dispute over seniority are Sudhir Kumar Atrey, Satish Kumar Sharma, and Jatinder Pal.
- These individuals are mentioned in the seniority list with references at serial numbers 258, 268, and 277 respectively.
Also Read: Legal Analysis in Assault and Homicide Case
Analysis
- The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, in their order dated May 26, 2008, highlighted the issue of seniority of individuals appointed through delayed selections.
- The Tribunal emphasized that the delay in appointment should not result in unsettling the entire seniority list, but individuals considered unfit for promotion and later found suitable should not gain seniority over juniors who had superseded them.
- The OM dated July 3, 1986, addresses the determination of seniority for direct recruits and promotees within the same select panel, emphasizing the date of appointment for seniority.
- The Tribunal directed modifying the seniority list in Annexure ‘O’ with reference to the date of initial appointment for the applicants.
- The Tribunal considered the lack of guidelines for determining inter se seniority of Commands at an All India level, and suggested reckoning seniority from the date of entering into service.
- The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of specific rules governing combined seniority lists for Commands within the Indian Army and emphasized the principle of initial date of appointment or continuous officiation for determining seniority in the absence of clear guidelines.
- Both the Tribunal and the High Court criticized the delayed appointments from the 1983 select panel but chose not to disrupt the existing order due to prolonged time and ongoing appointments and retirements.
- The Tribunal’s decision in 2008 prompted the revision of the seniority list based on the date of initial appointment, as directed by the Tribunal.
- Persons aggrieved with their placement in the re-casted seniority list can challenge it in independent proceedings
- Disapproval of the view expressed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in its judgment dated September 17, 2018
Also Read: Legal Analysis in Disciplinary Action Case
Decision
- Under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court is not inclined to disturb the assigned seniority of the respondents.
- Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No.6572 of 2014 is dismissed.
- Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.5275 of 2021 is allowed, and the impugned judgment dated 17 September, 2018 is set aside.
- The status of the respondents promoted in terms of their revised seniority remains undisturbed.
- The pending applications are disposed of.
- The seniority list of the respondents in Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.5275 of 2021 was revised post the judgment, though the principles were not approved by the Court.
Case Title: SUDHIR KUMAR ATREY Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2021 INSC 673)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006460-006460 / 2021
