Interse-seniority of main list and wait list candidates

Abhay Shanu (Querist) 06 July 2021 This query is : Resolved
what will be the seniority of main list candidates and reserve list candidates. when, any candidate (OBC) join the post in 2017 and a reserve list candidate (UR) join the post in 2018. where reserve list candidate has secured high marks than the main list candidate.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Quick Summary

The seniority of candidates, whether from a main list or a wait list, is typically determined by the length of service in the post, not their initial list placement. While some argue merit list ranking should be the criterion, legal precedents suggest that in the absence of specific rules, seniority is based on the date of joining the service. This ensures fairness, as fortuitous circumstances like reporting earlier shouldn't alter an individual's standing.

kavksatyanarayana (Expert) 06 July 2021
For seniority purposes, the date of joining the post is the criteria. But not the main list or waitlist.

P. Venu (Expert) 09 July 2021
To my knowledge, the criteria for seniority is the ranking in the merit list for selection, not the date of joining.

Message likes : 1 times

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 14 July 2021
Inter se Seniority is the seniority amongst the employees who are working at the same pay scale / rank. So, for example, if there are five Assistant Professors in a Department, the determination of inter se Seniority would mean determining which of the said five Assistant Professors will be the senior most.
In almost every Governmental Department, there are set rules governing the service of the persons working in that Government Department.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D. P. Das v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 115, has observed regarding seniority and promotion that,

“24. Determination of seniority is a vital aspect in the service career of an employee. His future promotion is dependent on this. Therefore, the determination of seniority must be based on some principles, which are just and fair. This is the mandate of Articles 14 and 16.”
There are various methods in which the inter se Seniority amongst the employees of the same rank / pay scale are decided, the most common of which is the merit list as per which the said persons were selected to that position.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.B. Joshi & others. v. Satish Kumar Pandey & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 267, has observed that it is trite law and a well settled principle of service jurisprudence that in the absence of any specific rule the seniority amongst persons holding similar posts in the same cadre has to be determined on the basis of the length of the service and not on any other fortuitous circumstances. Therefore, when there is no merit list and / or the appointments are made to different streams / departments, in that situation, the length of the service will have to be calculated to determine the inter se Seniority amongst the persons.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.B. Joshi & others. v. Satish Kumar Pandey & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 267, has observed that it is trite law and a well settled principle of service jurisprudence that in the absence of any specific rule the seniority amongst persons holding similar posts in the same cadre has to be determined on the basis of the length of the service and not on any other fortuitous circumstances. Therefore, when there is no merit list and / or the appointments are made to different streams / departments, in that situation, the length of the service will have to be calculated to determine the inter se Seniority amongst the persons.
for the determination of inter se seniority, the length of service when being looked into is to be calculated from the date of the appointment and not from the date of the joining of the service as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the fortuitous chance of reporting to duty earlier would not change the seniority as the length of service of such person who joined earlier would be greater than the others.

It is interesting to note that in the case Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana & others, (2003) 5 SCC 604, a three judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question of absence of a rule governing seniority held that an executive order may be issued to fill up the gap. Only in the absence of a rule or executive instructions, the court may have to evolve a fair and just principle of seniority, which could be applied in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Message likes : 1 times

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries