MS Anju Chawla & Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. The petitioners were the respondents before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi[1] in OA 733/2021.

2. Respondents 5 to 132 in the present writ petition were employed in schools under the Directorate of Education, Government of “the learned Tribunal”, hereinafter hereinafter collectively “the respondents” National Capital Territory of Delhi[3]. They had initially been appointed as Post Graduate Teachers in various subjects and had been successively promoted as Vice-Principal and thereafter as Principal, between the years 2010 and 2012, against vacancies pertaining to the years 2005-06 to 2008-09. The post of Principal, as per the applicable Recruitment Rules, was to be filled 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion.

3. During the years 2014 and 2017, i.e., much after the respondents have been promoted to the post of Principal, the present petitioners were directly recruited as Principal.

4. Following this, a tentative seniority list was issued on 5 November 2018, in which the respondents, who had been promoted as Principal prior in point of time to the direct recruitment of the petitioners as Principal, were shown above the petitioners. In other words, the earlier promotes were shown senior to the later Direct Recruits[4]. This, according to the respondents, represented the correct seniority position, as it was based on the date of entry in the cadre of Principal, whether as DR or as promotee. An earlier entrant was shown as senior to a later entrant.

5. Eight years thereafter, however, a fresh seniority list of Principals came to be circulated by the DOE on 3 November 2020. In the said seniority list, the petitioners (the later DRs) were placed above the respondents (the earlier promotees). “the DOE, GNCTD” hereinafter “DRs” hereinafter

6. Aggrieved thereby, the promotee respondents instituted OA 733/2021 before the learned Tribunal, submitting that, as they had been promoted and had joined as Principal much prior to the DR petitioners, the petitioners could not be placed above them, by according them seniority from dates on which they had not even been born on the cadre of Principal.

7. Before the learned Tribunal, it was an admitted position that the seniority, in the seniority list dated 3 November 2020, had been fixed on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI v N.R. Parmar[5].

8. The learned Tribunal has, by the impugned judgment, noted that the decision in Parmar was overruled by the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh v Ningam Siro[6], which holds that the seniority, whether of DRs or promotees, has to be reckoned from the date on which the concerned officer or employee joins her, or his, post, whether as a DR or as a promotee, and becomes part of the cadre, and cannot be reckoned from any earlier date. The Supreme Court specifically held that the seniority of direct recruits could not be granted from dates on which they were not even borne on the cadre and held the decision to that effect, as contained in Parmar, not to be correct law.

9. While so holding, the Supreme Court, in para 39 of the report in Meghachandra, protected the cases of inter se seniority already based on Parmar.

10. The learned Tribunal held that, as the seniority list dated 3 November 2020 had been issued after Meghachandra had been rendered, and there was no prior seniority list in existence, the seniority list was unsustainable as it was contrary to the law laid down in Meghachandra. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal set aside the seniority list dated 3 November 2020 and has directed the seniority of Principals to be redrawn keeping in mind the law laid down in Meghachandra.

11. This Bench has considered this aspect in some detail in its recent judgment in ICAR v Yugal Kishore Sah[7]. We have taken the view that the saving clause contained in para 39 of Meghachandra would apply only in case the seniority of the concerned officers/employees has been fixed by way of drawing up of a seniority list prior to the rendition of the decision in Meghachandra. Where the seniority list is drawn up for the first time after Meghachandra was rendered, we have held that seniority list has to subscribe to the law laid down in Meghachandra irrespective of the date of recruitment of the DRs or promotees whose inter se senority is being fixed.

12. Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to an Office Memorandum[8] dated 13 August W.P.(C) 14126/2024 in Judgment dated 07.10.2024 “OM” hereinafter 2021 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training[9], particularly emphasizing para 7 (ii) and (iii) of the said OM, which may be reproduced thus:

13. Para 7(iii) of the aforesaid OM does not accord with our understanding of Meghachandra, as explained in detail in Yugal Kishore Sah. It is clearly an executive instruction, and is not a rule within the meaning of para 39 of the judgment in Meghachandra. Meghachandra expressly overrules Parmar, declaring it to be bad law. In our view, having done so, Meghachandra cannot be understood to have permitted seniority to be fixed on the basis of the overruled judgment in Parmar. Fixation of seniority, post Meghachandra, has, in our view, to abide by Meghachandra, and cannot be effected on the basis of Parmar. The fact that the DRs and “the DOPT”, hereinafter promotees, in respect of whom the seniority was being fixed, may have been recruited prior to Meghachandra, cannot alter this position, and allow fixation of their seniority on the basis of the overruled Parmar. We cannot understand para 39 of Meghachandra to hold that, despite Parmar having been specifically held to be incorrectly rendered, and expressly overruled, the Supreme Court nonetheless permits seniority, in respect of DRs, or promotees, recruited prior to Meghachandra, to be fixed on the basis of Parmar. What para 39 of Meghachandra protects, in our view, is only inter se seniority which stands fixed, on the basis of Parmar, before Meghachandra was rendered. That, in our view, is the correct interpretation to be placed on the expression “inter se seniority already based”, as employed in para 39 of Meghachandra. Where there has been no Parmar-based determination of inter se seniority between DRs and promotees prior to the rendition of the judgment in Meghachandra, this saving caveat would have no application. Simply put, post-Meghachandra, inter se seniority would have to abide by the law declared in Meghachandra, and resort to the overruled Parmar decision would be completely ruled out.

14. Para 7(iii) of the DOPT OM dated 13 August 2021, which observes otherwise, is, in our view, clearly erroneous in law. It cannot be followed, in preference to the judgment of this Court in Yugal Kishore Sah.