Explore the detailed legal analysis of a recent court case revolving around a review DPC and seniority dispute. Discover how the court delved into the complexities of the matter, weighing the arguments and implications thoroughly. Gain insights into the court’s decision-making process and its impact on the parties involved in the case.
Facts
- Respondent No.4, after not making any requests for induction to the IAS cadre until 2016, raised grievances regarding his seniority in the IAS cadre and protested against the promotion of his juniors.
- The Central Government issued a final allocation list on 22.04.2003, following objections from aggrieved parties, in accordance with Section 73 of the Act.
- Appellant No.2 and other officers filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) against the High Court’s judgment which were dismissed on 12.02.2015.
- Respondent No.4 filed a Writ Petition seeking review DPC for consideration in the All India Services based on his seniority in SCS (Executive Branch).
- A State Advisory Committee was formed by the Central Government which listed SCS Officers for allocation to Uttarakhand based on seniority.
- Respondent No.4 was allocated to Uttarakhand on 09.06.2015 after objections to the preliminary allocation list.
- He continued to serve in Uttar Pradesh due to an interim order from the Court with proceedings regarding seniority ongoing.
- The High Court stayed allocation orders during pending Writ Petitions, and Respondent No.4 submitted objections to the tentative seniority list for consideration of additional qualifying services.
- The Government of Uttar Pradesh’s request for retaining Respondent No.4 was rejected by the Central Government, leading to his joining of the Uttarakhand services on 01.10.2016.
- Respondent No.4 was promoted to IAS on 09.01.2018 with the year of allotment being 2010.
- High Court ordered a review DPC based on a Writ Petition filed by Respondent No.4
- Central Government initiated the review DPC which was not completed due to objections from the State of Uttarakhand
- High Court directed the Respondents to hold a review DPC within six months
- After the Supreme Court dismissed the SLPs, final allocation was done
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Seniority Fixation in Contempt Petitions
Arguments
- The Appellants contended that the High Court erred in directing the review DPC without hearing them.
- Appellants were not made parties in the Writ Petition.
- It is established that persons likely to be affected must be heard before any order affecting them is passed.
- Respondent No. 4 claims entitlement to benefits and seniority from 09.11.2000 when allotted to Uttarakhand.
- Juniors to Respondent No. 4 were promoted before him.
- Respondent No. 4 was considered for promotion to the IAS cadre while working in Uttar Pradesh.
- Union of India supports Respondent No. 4’s plea for a review DPC.
- Final allocation of SCS Officers was delayed due to pending SLPs.
- Respondent No. 4 argues that the High Court’s order should not be interfered with under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Also Read: Interpretation of Section 80-IA Deductions
Analysis
- Respondent No.4 did not object or protest at the time of promotion of the Appellants to IAS.
- Respondent No.4 continued to work in Uttar Pradesh by choice despite the dismissals of his SLP.
- He did not seek promotion to IAS when his juniors were being promoted from Uttarakhand.
- The Appellants’ promotion to IAS cannot be reviewed at Respondent No.4’s behest.
- Respondent No.4 cannot disturb settled seniority matters from his time in Uttar Pradesh.
- No fault in Respondent No.4 pursuing legal remedies.
- Dispute arises regarding reconsideration of Respondent No.4 for inclusion in an earlier select list for promotion to IAS in Uttarakhand.
- Respondent No.4 was allocated to Uttarakhand in 2016 after the dismissal of the SLPs.
- Request for review of allotment and restoration of seniority was not accepted by the Union of India.
- Respondent No.4 could have requested consideration without affecting ongoing litigation.
Also Read: Judicial Analysis on Selection Process
Decision
- The High Court made an error by ordering a review DPC without involving the affected parties
- The High Court failed to consider the potential impact on the seniority of other officers
- The judgement of the High Court has been set aside and the Appeal is allowed
Case Title: VINOD PRASAD RATURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2021 INSC 157)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000495-000495 / 2021
