Leela Bisht And Another vs Pan Singh And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The application seeking condonation of 89 days in preferring the Special Appeal is not opposed by Sri Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, and the delay is, therefore, condoned. The application (CLMA No. 12795 of 2019), seeking condonation of delay, stands allowed.

This Special Appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2402 of 2017 dated 17.05.2019.

Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein had filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2402 of 2017 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the third-respondent dated 22.06.2017 as well as the altered final seniority list dated 15.07.2017; and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue a revised seniority list of 2017 declaring the respondents-writ petitioners senior to the appellants as they were senior to them in the earlier seniority list also.

Facts, as noted in the order under appeal, are that both the appellants and the respondents-writ petitioners were appointed as Junior Clerks in the selection held in the year 1987, and were appointed in the Animal Husbandry Department on 15.04.1987. A seniority list of ministerial employees was prepared on 09.10.1990, wherein the respondents-writ petitioners were shown as senior to some of the appellants herein. The said seniority list became final, and the respondents-writ petitioners were, on the basis thereof, promoted to post of Senior Assistant. Thereafter, another seniority list was prepared in the year 1999, and was circulated by the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department vide letter dated 31.05.1999. In this seniority list also, the respondents-writ petitioners were placed above some of the appellants. In the absence of any challenge, it also became final. Yet another tentative seniority list of ministerial employees, serving in Kumaon Region, was prepared on 03.05.2012, which was circulated by order dated 29.06.2012 wherein the respondents-writ petitioners were again shown as senior to some of the appellants. Objections were submitted against the tentative seniority list, which were rejected by the Deputy Director vide order dated 22.06.2012 on the ground that the seniority list was based on the seniority lists prepared earlier. A final seniority list was issued on 29.06.2012, in which their inter se seniority, as existing earlier , was maintained. The representation, submitted by one of the appellants thereafter, was also rejected by the Director, Animal Husbandry Department by order dated 19.10.2012. Some of the appellants again made a representations against the final seniority list in the year 2016. The Additional Director, Animal Husbandry Department constituted a Committee to consider these representations and, on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee, the inter-se seniority was disturbed, and the respondents-writ petitioners were treated as enbloc juniors to the appellants herein. The respondents-writ petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court stating that the earlier seniority lists could not have been disturbed after a long delay.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge, relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in H.S. Vankani and others Vs. State of Gujarat and others : (2010) 4 SCC 301 ; Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and others Vs. State of Orrisa and others : (2010) 12 SCC 471 ; Ramchandra Shanker Deodhar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors : AIR 1974 SC 259 ; R.N. Bose v. Union of India & Ors : AIR 1970 SC 470 ; R.S. Makashi v. I.M. Menon & Ors : AIR 1982 SC 101 ; State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Bhailal Bhai etc. etc : AIR 1964 SC 1006 ; K.R.Mudgal & Ors. v. R.P. Singh & Ors : AIR 1986 SC 2086 ; Malcom Lawrance Cecil D'Souza v. Union of India & Ors : AIR 1975 SC 1269 ; B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab & Ors : AIR 1999 SC 1510 ; Dayaram Asanand v. State of Maharashtra & Ors : AIR 1984 SC 850 ; P.S.Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu : AIR 1975 SC 2271 ; Smt.Sudama Devi vs. Commissioner & Ors : (1983) 2 SCC 1 ; State of U.P. vs.Raj Bahadur Singh & Anr : (1998) 8 SCC 685 ; Northern Indian Glass Industries vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors : (2003) 1 SCC 335. 26 ; Dinkar Anna Patil & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra : AIR 1999 SC 152 ; K.A.Abdul Majeed vs. State of Kerala & Ors : (2001) 6 SCC 292 ; Aflatoon & Ors. vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors : AIR 1974 SC 2077 and several other judgments, held that the seniority list of ministerial employees was prepared in the year 1990, wherein the respondents-writ petitioners were placed above some of the appellants; based on the said seniority list, promotions were also made from time to time; the inter- se seniority position, determined in the said seniority list, was maintained for 27 years; and it was not open to the authorities, therefore, to disturb the settled inter- se seniority position after such a long lapse of time.

Sri Dinesh Gahtori, leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, would submit that, in terms of the extant Rules, seniority is required to be reckoned on the basis of the rank secured by the candidates in the initial selection; and, since there was an error in determining the inter-se seniority in the list of Junior Clerks in the year 1990, which error continued to be repeated in the subsequent seniority lists also, the appellants had perforce to seek correction therefor to bring it in conformity with the Rules; and all that the authority had done was to correct the earlier error, and prepare the seniority list strictly in accordance with the Rules in force.

What the learned counsel has failed to address us is on the question whether the seniority list, which was prepared several years earlier and which was repeatedly acted upon, can be revised after a long lapse of time.

The law declared in the judgments of the Supreme Court, on which the learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon, emphatically hold that it cannot.

The learned Single Judge was, in our view, justified in setting aside the order dated 22.06.2017 and the amended seniority list dated 15.07.2017, since it was contrary to several seniority lists prepared earlier, which were acted upon by the authorities concerned from time to time.

Interference in an intra-Court appeal is justified only if the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality. We find no such infirmity in the order under appeal.

The Special Appeals fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.