9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attan that the seniority of Inspectors had not been finalized when the decision in K. Meghachandra was rendered and was therefore required to be redrawn in accordance with the principles laid therein, the learned Tribunal was justified in directing the UoI to re- draw the seniority list as per K. Meghachandra. In fact, even the petitioners plea is accepted that in Yash Rattan, this Court was not dealing with the inter se seniority of promotees and direct recruits, nothing much turns on the same. Even though the Court was not specifically dealing with the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, the fact remains that the seniority list which was under consideration by the Court reflected the names of direct recruits, including the petitioners herein. Once, this Court had opined in Yash Rattan that the seniority list dated 15.03.2018 had not attained finality and was therefore required to be re-drawn as per K. Meghachandra, it is not open for the petitioners to urge that their seniority has to be fixed as per the earlier decision in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS NR. PARMAR [ 2012 (12) TMI 872 - SUPREME COURT ]. Furthermore, the decision in Yash Rattan, whereunder the seniority li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Inspectors in the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and Custom Department in terms of the directions issued by the Apex Court in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, (2020) 5 SCC 689, as mandated under DoPT s Office Memorandums (OM) dated 13.08.2021 and 18.08.2021. The learned Tribunal has consequently directed that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for consideration of Inspectors for further promotions will be held only after drawing the revised seniority list in terms of these directions issued under the impugned order. 7. The brief factual matrix as is necessary for adjudication of the present petitions is that the petitioners are direct recruits having been appointed as Inspectors pursuant to the selection process initiated in February 2015 and joined service on different dates in the year 2016. It is the common case of the parties that on 15.03.2018, the inter se seniority of officials in the rank of Inspector, which comprises of direct recruits, promotees as also the Inter Commissionerate Transferees (ICT), was issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly in accordance with the principles laid down in K. Meghachandra (supra). However, taking note of the fact that the decision in K. Meghachandra (supra) has also been referred to a larger bench by the Apex Court in Hariharan Ors. v. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1717, the learned Tribunal has clarified that the revised seniority list which was required to be issued by UoI would remain subject to the decision in Hariharan Ors. (supra). Being aggrieved, the petitioners who are direct recruits having been appointed as Inspectors in 2016, have approached this Court. 10. In support of the petition, Mr. Ankur Chibber, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that while passing the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that this Court s order dated 09.04.2021 in Yash Rattan (supra), which was the basis for holding that the seniority list issued on 15.03.2018 has not been finalized, was not applicable to the facts of the present case. He submits that in Yash Rattan (supra), while rejecting the challenge to the learned Tribunal s order dated 13.10.2020, this Court had categorically observed that the seniority list between the direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 not attained finality, cannot now be permitted to urge that this Court should re- examine the issue decided in Yash Rattan (supra). They, therefore, pray that the writ petitions be dismissed. 14. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. Even though, the petitioners are correct in urging that they had joined service well before the date when the decision in K. Meghachandra (supra) was rendered, the fact remains that there is a categoric finding by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Yash Rattan (supra) that the seniority list dated 15.03.2018, which included the names of the petitioners, had not been finalized when the decision in K. Meghachandra (supra) was rendered. For the sake of completeness, it would therefore be apposite to refer to the relevant findings in Yash Rattan (supra), which read as under:- 16. We have examined the rival contentions. It is a matter of fact that the seniority position in the present case was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Such observation is fallacious inasmuch as none can be identified as being a selected candidate on the date when the process of recruitment had commenced. On that day, a body of persons aspiring to be appointed to the vacancy intended for direct recruits was not in existence. The persons who might respond to an advertisement cannot have any service-related rights, not to talk of right to have their seniority counted from the date of the advertisement. In other words, only on completion of the process, the applicant morphs into a selected candidate and, therefore, unnecessary observation was made in N.R. Parmar to the effect that the selected candidate cannot be blamed for the administrative delay. In the same context, we may usefully refer to the ratio in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, where it was held that even upon empanelment, an appointee does not acquire any right. 39. The judgment in N.R. Parmar relating to the Central Government employees cannot in our opinion, automatically apply to the Manipur State Police Officers, governed by the MPS Rules, 1965. We also feel that N.R. Parmar had incorrectly distinguished the long-standing seniority determination principles, propo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prospectively. 18. Therefore, in our view CAT has correctly applied the dicta in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) case in the present case and has proceeded to quash the seniority list to the extent it placed the petitioners 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. 15. In the light of the aforesaid categoric findings recorded in Yash Rattan (supra) that the seniority of Inspectors had not been finalized when the decision in K. Meghachandra (supra) was rendered and was therefore required to be redrawn in accordance with the principles laid therein, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal was justified in directing the U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
