Sh. Adil Rashid Siddiqui vs Union Of India And Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 413 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                 Judgment pronounced on: 20.01.2012

+       W.P.(C) 393/2012

        SH. ADIL RASHID SIDDIQUI                        ...       Petitioner

                                         versus

     UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                             ...      Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner         : Mr Aaditya V.K.
For Respondents            : Mr S.M. Arif

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 02nd November, 2011,

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), dismissing the OA No. 3191/2009, filed

by the petitioner.

An advertisement was issued by SSC on 26 th November, 1991, to fill up the

vacancies of Head Clerks, which had arisen in the year 1991. The interviews were

held in the year 1995 and the result was released vide letter dated 02nd May, 1995.

The applicant joined All India Radio on 15 th June, 1995. A draft seniority list of

Head Clerk/Accountants/Senior Storekeepers was issued by All India Radio on

18th November, 1997, wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at serial

No.56. The draft seniority list indicated the seniority as on 01 st October, 1996.

The list was circulated with a stipulation that the omissions/discrepancies, if any,

noticed in the list be brought to the notice of the issuing office on or before 28 th

November, 1997. The petitioner made a representation seeking seniority with

reference to the year of vacancy, i.e., 1991-92. Another seniority list was

thereupon issued on 24th February, 2005 wherein the petitioner was placed at serial

No. 12, between Shri Bhajan Lal and Shri R.B. Chakraborty, who were appointed

in the year 1992 from surplus cell. A perusal of the covering letter dated 24th

February, 2005, whereby this list was circulated, would show that this also was

only a draft seniority list and not a final list. Objections were invited while issuing

this draft list as well. A number of representations were made by other employees,

when the petitioner was granted seniority with reference to the year of vacancy, in

the draft list issued on 24th February, 2005. The representationists also claimed

upgradation of their seniority with reference to the years in which the vacancies,

against which they had qualified in the departmental examination, had arisen. The

matter was referred by the respondents to DoP&T, which, vide its letter dated 28th

September, 2005, clarified as under:-

"It is not understood on what basis seniority of Shri Siddiqui has been fixed with reference to the vacancy year of 1991 even though he joined much later in the year 1995. The Department‟s instructions dated 7th February, 1986 and 3rd July,

1986 on seniority clearly indicate that inter-se seniority between the promotees and Direct Recruits in a particular year shall be determined only with reference to such Direct Recruits as are available for rotation i.e. as have joined the service or post. The principle and practice of assigning seniority to Direct Recruits with reference to vacancy year was done away with by these O.Ms. Thus seniority to a Direct Recruit is to be assigned with reference to the year of joining and not with reference to vacancy year."

It was thus clarified by DoP&T that seniority had to be assigned with

reference to the year of joining and not with reference to the year in which the

vacancy arose. Yet one more draft seniority list was issued on 18 th September,

2007 placing the petitioner at serial No. 6, between Shri S. Kajur and Shri Bhajan

Lal. This draft list indicated the provisional seniority list on 1 st January, 2007 and

objections were called while issuing this draft seniority list.

2. Pursuant to the clarification given by DoP&T vide its letter dated 29th

August, 2005, Director General of All India Radio vide letter dated 31st December,

2008, issued the following clarification with respect to seniority of Head

Clerks/Assistants in AIR/Doordarshan in respect of Direct Recruits/Departmental

Examination vis-à-vis promotees:-

"The Ministry of I&B in consultation with DoP&T has clarified the position which are reproduced as under:-

"DoP&T‟s instructions dated 7 th February 1986

and 3rd July 1986 on seniority clearly indicate that inter-se seniority between the promotees and Direct Recruits in a particular year shall be determined only with reference to such direct recruits as are available for rotation i.e. as have joined the service or post. The principle and practice of assigning seniority to direct recruits with reference to vacancy year was done away with by these O.Ms and thus the seniority to a direct recruit is to be assigned with reference to the year of joining and not with reference to the year of vacancy.

DoP&T has further clarified that when appointments against unfilled vacancies are made in subsequent year or years either by direct recruitments or promotions, the person so appointed shall not get seniority of earlier year (viz. year of vacancy/panel or year in which recruitment process is initiated) but should get the seniority of any year in which they are appointed on substantive basis."

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid clarification, a revised seniority list in respect of

Head Clerks/Assistants in Delhi Zone as on 01 st January, 2008 and 01st January,

2009 was issued by the Station Director under whom the petitioner was working,

placing him at serial No. 8 and giving him seniority w.e.f. 15 th June, 1995, when he

was appointed as a Head Clerk and he was placed between M.L. Sharma and Shri

Ramendra Dutt who were appointed on 26th April, 1995 and 29th September, 1995.

It is the revised seniority list which the petitioner challenged before the Central

Administrative Tribunal.

4. Initially, the OA was dismissed vide judgment dated 30 th September, 2010.

The petitioner filed WP(C) No. 303/2011, challenging the order passed by the

Tribunal. This Court vide order dated 17th January, 2011, noticing that some of the

contentions of the petitioner had not been dealt with by the Tribunal, remanded the

matter back to the Tribunal to re-decide it after dealing with all the pleas urged by

the petitioner. The OA was again dismissed, vide impugned order dated 02 nd

November, 2011.

5. During the course of arguments, we specifically asked the learned counsel

for the petitioner to show to us any rule, whereby he may be entitled to seniority

with reference to the year in which the vacancy against which he was appointed,

had arisen. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, could not show any

such rule to us and had, in fact, to concede that there was no rule, entitling the

petitioner to seniority with reference to the date in which the vacancy against which

he was appointed has arisen. The contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner before us was that the seniority fixed vide seniority list dated 24th

February, 2005 could not have been changed by the respondents to the

disadvantage to the petitioner and in any case, it could not have been done without

giving show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. We have

examined seniority lists issued on 18 th November, 1997, 24th February, 2005 and

18th September, 2007. None of these lists, indicating the seniority of Head Clerks,

is a final list. All of them have been termed as „provisional list‟ and have been

circulated with a clear stipulation that objections could be filed, against the

placements shown in the lists. If, after considering the objections, the respondents

decided to change the placement of the petitioner and give him seniority w.e.f. the

date of his appointment, no show-cause notice was required to be given to him.

The very purpose of using a draft seniority list is to give an opportunity to those

whose names find mention in the list, to make representations, if any, in respect of

their placement in the list. It is only after considering the objections received

against the placements shown in the draft seniority list, that a final list can be

drawn up and issued by the Department. Since no show-cause notice is required to

be given to an employee before revising his placement shown in the draft seniority

list, it cannot be said that the respondents violated the principles of natural justice

by changing the placement of the petitioner, while issuing the list, whereby he was

given seniority w.e.f. the date of joining the service. It is correct that initially the

Department had agreed to give seniority to the petitioner with reference to the year

in which the vacancy against which he was appointed, had arisen, but, since the list

issued by the Department, giving him seniority with reference to the year in which

the vacancy had arisen, was only a draft list and DoP&T had later clarified the

correct position of law that an employee has to be given seniority w.e.f. the date of

appointment and not with reference to the year in which the vacancy against which

he was appointed had arisen, nothing in law prevented the respondents from

revising the tentative seniority initially assigned to the petitioner and they were not

required to give any show-cause notice to the petitioner before changing his

placement. In fact, even the seniority list giving seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. the

date of his appointment was only a provisional list, inviting objections from those

who had any grievance against their placement in that list, which, in turn, clearly

indicates that the Department was acting in a fair and reasonable manner giving full

opportunity to everyone, including the petitioner to make representation against

placement shown in that list.

6. As stated earlier, the petitioner has not brought to our notice any such rule,

whereby he may be given seniority with reference to the date in which the vacancy

against which he was appointed had arisen. The principle laid down by the

Supreme Court in this regard in Pawan Pratap Singh and Others vs. Reevan

Singh and Ors.: 2011 (3) SCC 267 is that in the absence of any rule to the contrary

seniority cannot relate back to a period prior to the date of the incumbent‟s birth in

the service/cadre. The legal position, after taking into consideration earlier

decisions in Ram Janam Singh v. State of U.P: (1994) 2 SCC 622, Uttaranchal

Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P. (2006) 10 SCC 346,

State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334, was

summarized as under:

(i) The effective date of selection has to be understood in the context of the service rules under which the appointment is made. It may mean the date on which the process of selection starts with the issuance of advertisement or the factum of preparation of the select list, as the case may be.

(ii) Inter se seniority in a particular service has to be determined as per the service rules. The date of entry in a particular service or the date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or the other or between one group of officers and the other recruited from the different sources. Any departure therefrom in the statutory rules, executive instructions or otherwise must be consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(iii) Ordinarily, notional seniority may not be granted from the back date and if it is done, it must be based on objective considerations and on a valid classification and must be traceable to the statutory rules.

(iv) The seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service rules. It is so because seniority cannot be given on retrospective basis when an employee has not even born in the cadre and by doing so it may adversely affect the employees who have been appointed validly in the mean time.

In an earlier decision in Suraj Prakash Gupta v. State of J & K (2000) 7

SCC 561, Supreme Court considered the plea of ante-dating the date of recruitment

on the ground that the vacancy against which the appointment was made had arisen

long ago and inter alia held as under:

(4) Whether the direct recruits could claim a retrospective date of recruitment from the date on which the post in direct

recruitment was available, even though the direct recruit was not appointed by that date and was appointed long thereafter?

This Court answered the question in the following terms: Point 4:

Direct recruits cannot claim appointment from date of vacancy in quota before their selection.

We have next to refer to one other contention raised by the Respondent-direct recruits. They claimed that the direct recruitment appointment can be ante-dated from the date of occurrence of a vacancy in the direct recruitment quota, even if on that date the said person was not directly recruited. It was submitted that if the promotees occupied the quota belonging to direct recruits they had to be pushed down, whenever direct recruitment was made. Once they were so pushed down, even if the direct recruit came later, he should be put in the direct recruit slot from the date on which such a slot was available under the direct recruitment quota.

This contention, in our view, cannot be accepted. The reason as to why this argument is wrong is that in service jurisprudence, a direct recruit can claim seniority only from the date of his regular appointment. He cannot claim seniority from a date when he was not borne in the service. This principle is well settled. In N.K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, Krishna Iyer, J. stated:

Later direct recruit cannot claim deemed dates of appointment for seniority with effect from the time when direct recruitment vacancy arose. Seniority will depend upon length of service. Again, in A. Janardhana v. Union of India, it was held that a later direct recruit cannot claim seniority from a date before his birth in the service or when he was in school or college. Similarly it was pointed out in A.N. Pathak v. Secretary to the Government that slots cannot be kept reserved for the direct recruits for retrospective appointments.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the

petitioner is entitled to seniority with reference to the year of vacancy placed

reliance on clause IV of the letter of appointment of the petitioner, which, inter

alia, stipulated that "the seniority of the candidates should be fixed on the basis of

the ranks of the candidates in the examination and not on the basis of their date of

appointment". In our opinion, the reliance on the aforesaid clause in the

appointment letter is wholly misplaced. What the aforesaid stipulation in the

appointment letter means is that the seniority of those who were selected along

with the petitioner would be determined with reference to their merit and not with

reference to the date of their joining. To illustrate, if five persons are selected

together and the person at serial No. 1 joins after the person at serial No. 2 in the

merit list, the person at serial No. 1 in the merit list, would be placed above the

person at serial No. 2 irrespective of the date on which he joins. But, it does not

mean that they would get seniority with reference to the year in which the

vacancies against which they were appointed had arisen. We pointedly asked the

learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any person lower to the petitioner

in the order of merit was placed above the petitioner in the impugned seniority list.

The learned counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded that no person placed

below the petitioner in the order of merit was given seniority above the petitioner

in the impugned seniority list.

For the reasons given hereinabove, we find no merit in the writ petition and

the same is hereby dismissed, without any order as to costs.

V.K.JAIN, J

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

JANUARY 20, 2012 bg