9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32324/2024 in W.P.(C) 7799/2024 CM APPL. 32746/2024 in W.P.(C) 7939/2024 3. These are applications filed by the petitioners seeking to place on record lengthy synopsis and lists of dates. 4. The applications are, for the reasons stated there in, allowed and the synopsis and the lists of dates filed along with the petitions are taken on record. 5. The applications stand disposed of. W.P.(C) 7674/2024, CM APPL. 31952/2024 (directions) & CM APPL.31953/2024 (stay) W.P.(C) 7772/2024 & CM APPL. 32232/2024 (stay) W.P.(C) 7799/2024, CM APPL. 32320/2024 (directions) & CM APPL.32321/2024 (stay) W.P.(C) 7939/2024, CM APPL. 32742/2024 (directions) & CM APPL.32743/2024 (stay) 6. The present batch of petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seek to assail the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in a batch of original applications (OA), including OA No.939/2023. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the OAs filed by the private respondents by setting aside the modified seniority list dated 07.10.2022 and has directed the Union of India (UoI) to finalize and re-draw the seniority list of Inspe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in K. Meghachandra (supra) was rendered, the said seniority list was required to be re-drawn on the basis of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in K. Meghachandra (supra). This decision was unsuccessfully assailed before the Apex Court, first by direct recruits by way of SLP (Civil) No.9519/2022 and then by the UoI by way of SLP (Civil) No. 11046/2022. Both these SLPs were dismissed in limine on 20.05.2022 and 12.07.2022 respectively. Consequently, after dismissal of these SLPs, the UoI, in purported compliance of this Court's order dated 09.04.2021, came up with a modified seniority list on 07.10.2022. 9. Some of the promotees as also the ICTs felt aggrieved with this seniority list as it was their case that the same had not been issued in accordance with the principles laid down in K. Meghachandra (supra). In these circumstances, they approached the learned Tribunal by way of a batch of OAs, including OA No.939/2023, which have been allowed under the impugned order, by again directing the UoI to re-draw the seniority list strictly in accordance with the principles laid down in K. Meghachandra (supra). However, taking note of the fact that the decision in K. Meghachandra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te respondents who were applicants in the OA, were not even a part of the modified seniority list issued on 07.10.2022 and therefore were precluded from laying any challenge thereto. He finally submits that since all these vital aspects have been lost sight of by this Court while deciding Yash Rattan (supra), the said decision ought to be treated as per incuriam. He therefore prays that this Court instead of following the decision in Yash Ratttan (supra) may refer the question involved in the present matter to a larger bench. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents support the impugned order and submit that in the light of the categoric findings of this Court that the seniority list dated 15.03.2018 had not been finalized when the decision in K. Meghachandra (supra) was rendered by the Apex Court, the petitioners are estopped from urging that their seniority stood crystallized before the said date. He further, contends that the petitioners having unsuccessfully assailed the decision in Yash Rattan (supra) before the Apex Court and having taken no steps for over two years to challenge the finding of this Court that the seniority list dated 15.03.2018 had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 illustration. According to us, the illustration extracted in N.R. Parmar itself, makes it clear that the vacancies which were intended for direct recruitment in a particular year (1986) which were filled in the next year (1987) could be taken into consideration only in the subsequent year's seniority list but not in the seniority list of 1986. In fact, this was indicated in the two OMs dated 7-2-1986 and 3-7-1986 and that is why the Government issued the subsequent OM on 3-3-2008 by way of clarification of the two earlier OMs. 38. At this stage, we must also emphasise that the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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; (iii) N.R. Parmar (supra) has incorrectly distinguished the longstanding seniority determination principles propounded in the following cases:- (a) Jagdish Ch. Patnaik Vs. State of Orissa, (1998) 4 SCC 456; (b) Suraj Prakash Gupta Vs. State of J&K, (2000) 7 SCC 561; and, (c) Pawan Pratap Singh Vs. Reevan Singh, (2011) 3 SCC 267 (iv) In service jurisprudence, seniority cannot be claimed from the date when the incumbent is yet to be borne in the cadre and therefore, norms on assessment of inter se seniority, suggested in N.R. Parmar (supra) case were disapproved; (v) Decision in N.R. Parmar (supra) case is overruled, however the decision will not affect the inter se seniority already based on N.R. Parmar (supra) case and the same is protected. Decision will apply prospectively. 18. Therefore, in our view CAT has correctly applied the dicta in K. Meghachandra Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
