In a significant legal case, the Delhi High Court addressed the seniority dispute in the matter of K. Meghachandra Singh vs. Union of India. The court’s decision focused on re-drawing the seniority list based on specific principles, providing clarity on the matter. Stay tuned for more insights on this crucial judgment. #Seniority #DelhiHighCourt
Facts
- The Tribunal allowed the OAs filed by the private respondents, setting aside the modified seniority list dated 07.10.2022.
- The Union of India was directed to finalize and re-draw the seniority list of Inspectors in the CGST and Custom Department based on the directions in the K. Meghachandra case.
- The principles from the N.R. Parmar case were no longer applicable, as per the decision in K. Meghachandra.
- The seniority list was to be finalized strictly following the principles in the K. Meghachandra case.
- The Tribunal noted that the K. Meghachandra case was referred to a larger bench by the Apex Court in the Hariharan case.
- The revised seniority list by the UoI would be subject to the decision in the Hariharan case.
Arguments
- Petitioner argues that seniority list had been finalized before the judgment in K. Meghachandra was rendered, making them estopped from challenging it.
- Refers to Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India stating appointee does not acquire right even upon empanelment.
- Claims N.R. Parmar judgment for Central Govt. employees cannot automatically apply to Manipur State Police Officers governed by MPS Rules, 1965.
- Suggests N.R. Parmar incorrectly distinguished longstanding seniority determination principles from other cases like Jagdish Ch Patnaik Vs. State of Orissa.
- Cites Yash Rattan case observation that seniority list dispute was not a subject of consideration, hence not applicable for determine inter se seniority of promotees and direct recruits.
Analysis
- The judgment in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) was delivered on 13th November, 2019, but the seniority position was not finally settled at that time.
- The seniority list itself was under challenge before CAT, so the principles laid down in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) had to be applied.
- Seniority cannot be claimed from a date before the incumbent is actually part of the cadre.
- Seniority of direct recruits should be declared from the date of appointment, not the date of recruitment process initiation.
- The decision in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) will apply prospectively, except certain situations.
- The two OMs dated 7-2-1986 and 3-7-1986 clarified that seniority should be determined from the date of appointment for direct recruits.
- Persons aspiring for a vacant post do not have a vested right until appointment.
- The judgment in N.R. Parmar was overruled in favor of the principles stated in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik for determining seniority.
- An advertisement respondent cannot claim seniority from the date of the advertisement.
- CAT correctly applied the principles from K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) in the current case and annulled the seniority list placing the petitioners above private respondents.
- Vacancies intended for direct recruitment in one year should only be considered in the subsequent year’s seniority list.
- The OMs of 1986 were inaccurately construed in the N.R. Parmar judgment.
- Unnecessary observations were made in N.R. Parmar regarding selected candidates and administrative delays.
- The pre-requisites essential for the exercise of inherent powers under Article 226 are not present in this case.
- The petitioners have not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of inherent powers by the High Court.
- Reliance on judgments that dealt with different facts and circumstances is not justified in this case.
- The grounds for invoking inherent powers must be strong and compelling, which is lacking in the present case.
- The seniority of Inspectors had not been finalized when the decision in K. Meghachandra was rendered in Yash Rattan case.
- The learned Tribunal was justified in directing the UoI to re-draw the seniority list as per K. Meghachandra.
- The decision in Yash Rattan case, where the seniority list was directed to be re-drawn as per K. Meghachandra, has already attained finality after unsuccessful appeals before the Apex Court.
- Even though the Court was not specifically dealing with the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, the seniority list under consideration included names of direct recruits, including the petitioners.
- Therefore, the seniority list dated 15.03.2018 was required to be re-drawn as per K. Meghachandra as per the decision in Yash Rattan case.
Decision
- Writ petitions and pending applications are dismissed
- Decision is subject to the outcome in Hariharan case
- Observation by the learned Tribunal is reiterated
Case Title: RAVI KUMAR & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (2024:DHC:4387-DB)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-7674/2024
