Sunil Anand Burak v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the Order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.1378/2023, titled DASS Officers Association & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., dismissing the OA filed by the petitioners herein, by relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. v. Ningam Siro & Ors., (2020) 5 SCC 689.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that pursuant to an Advertisement No. 03/13 dated 12.09.2013 issued by the respondent no.3 inter alia for 313 vacancies to the post of Grade II (DASS) in the Services Department of Government in NCT of Delhi, the petitioners applied for the same.

3. Though, the advertisement required the selection process to be finalized within a period of six months from the issue of advertisement, the select list for the appointment to the post was issued only around six years thereafter, sometime in 2019.

4. The petitioners, who were successful in the selection, joined the services between May 2019 to September 2019. They made representations to the respondents for their seniority to be considered in accordance with the vacancy years, that is, between 2012-13, and having failed to receive any response from the respondents, they filed the above O.A.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the relevant time, the law with respect to the determination of the seniority was governed by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar v. Union of India & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 20. She submits that in terms of the said judgment, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to have the seniority determined in accordance with the year of vacancy.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents had rightly determined the seniority of the petitioners from the year of their appointment, as the seniority list had not been finalized before the Judgment of Supreme Court in K.Meghachandra Singh(supra).

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. As noted hereinabove, the learned Tribunal has rejected the prayer of the petitioners by placing reliance on K.Meghachandra Singh(supra). We find no infirmity with the said finding of the learned Tribunal. As has been held in K.Meghachandra Singh(supra), the principles laid down therein are applicable to all cases where the seniority list had not been finalized.

9. This Court in ICAR & Anr. v. Yugal Kishore Sah & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7150, has considered a plea similar to the one raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and rejected the same by observing as under:

Meghachandra. The petitioners' contention is that the Supreme Court has authorized - rather, directed - seniority, between DRs and promotes recruited prior to the rendition of the judgment in Meghanchandra, to be fixed on the basis of Parmar, even while holding Parmar to be wrong law. Any such interpretation of Meghanchandra would be not only preposterous, but absurd.

9. All that para 39 of Meghachandra saves, in our opinion, is seniority which already stands fixed as per Parmar, before Meghachandra was rendered. In no circumstances can Meghachandra be understood as authorizing, or permitting, inter se seniority between DRs and promotees to be fixed, after Meghanchandra stood rendered, in accordance with Parmar, irrespective of when the officers whose inter se seniority was being fixed were inducted in the service.

10. We, therefore, concur with the learned Tribunal in its view that the ICAR was in error in circulating the seniority lists on 20 September 2021, 7 January 2022 and 13 October 2022 on the basis of Parmar. The seniority had necessarily to be fixed as per Meghachandra, and the learned Tribunal is perfectly correct in directing the ICAR to do so.”

10. In Anju Chawla & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7290, this Court reiterated the above position as under: