Principle Of Initial Date Of Appointment Valid Principle To Determine Inter Se Seniority In Absence Of Rules To Contrary: SC

Key Takeaway

• The Apex Court held that the principle of the initial date of appointment or officiation shall be the valid principle while determining the inter se seniority when any rule or guidelines are absent to the contrary.
• The Bench that decided on the case of Sudhir Kumar Atrey V. Union of India & Ors consisted of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay Oka.
• The Coram heard the appeals that challenged the judgements of both the Delhi High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
• The question raised was the determination of seniority inter se of the candidates selected in the concerned Command at the stage when combined All India Seniority list is to be prepared.

Background

• In this case, the office of the Engineering-in-Chief Branch sent a letter to the Army Headquarters to the Chief Engineers of all the five Commands to recruit Group ‘C’ personnel in the Grade of Superintendent (B/R) Grade II and Superintendent (E/M) Grade II.
• The candidates/applicants for the post of Group ‘C’ personnel of the Military Engineering Services were selected and placed in the select panel on 29th June, 1983 of the Western Command but were appointed after 5 years down from April 1987 to 1998.
• Their seniority was determined from the date of the joining. Since the candidates belonged from the select panel of June 1983, the seniority was to be determined based on their merit regardless of their joining dates.
• They were also entitled to make such seniority claims with their counterparts who were appointed out of the 1983 select panel. However, such claims were denied by the concerned High Courts who stated that in complex situations like this where the Rules or guidelines were silent while determining inter se seniority of the Commands at All India level, and seniority was not allowed to be claimed like their counterparts.

Courts Observation

• While giving their judgements, the Bench considered the fact that the Rules of guidelines were silent and were not given by the respondents including the Union of India which deals with matters concerning the inter se seniority when a combined seniority list at All India level is prepared under the Scheme of 1971 Rules.
• The Court also observed that the respondents were taking help of Office Memorandum of DoPT which deals with the determination of seniority of direct recruits who are selected and placed in the same select panel in the earlier selection and shall remain seniors to earlier appointed candidates.
• The Court observed that in matters adjudging seniority of the candidates selected and placed in the same selection, placement in order of merit can be applicable based on the principle of seniority but where selections are held separately by different recruiting authorities, the principle of the initial date of appointment is the valid principle while adjudging inter se seniority of officers where the Rules and guidelines are absent.

Courts Order

• The Court upheld that the judgements made by the Delhi High Court and disapproved the views given by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and ordered that the authorities must be held accountable for their arbitrary action. The Court did not reopen the dead cases at this point and granted the relief without disturbing the status of the respondents.

Questions

• Should seniority be granted from the date of joining or from the date of appointment?
• Is it fair for the authorities to be held accountable for making such decisions?

Share your views in the comments section below.