Mukta Srivastava And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicants were appointed as Chemical Examiners, Grade II (CE-II) in the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Ministry of Finance. The seniority list of incumbents in that post as on 01.01.2012 and 01.01.2013 was published on 29.01.2014. The applicants were promoted to the post of Chemical Examiner Grade-I (CE-I) in the year 2015 on the basis of the seniority list dated 29.01.2014.

The respondents issued a revised seniority list for the post of CE-II on 19.12.2017, stating to be in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. N.R. Parmar, (2012)13 SCC 340. The seniority of the applicants, as reflected in the seniority list dated 29.01.2014, was changed to the detriment. The respondents have also proposed to conduct a review DPC to reconsider the promotions which have already taken place and to bring them in conformity with the revised seniority list dated 19.12.2017. This OA is filed, challenging the revised seniority list dated 19.12.2017, as well as the consequential steps proposed by the respondents.

The applicants contend that once they have been assigned seniority in the year 2014 and were also promoted on that basis, there was absolutely no justification for the respondents to revise the seniority list, to their detriment, that too without issuing notice. They further contend that the proposal to revisit the promotions that have already taken place to the post of CE-I, is totally impermissible in law.

On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, a counter affidavit is filed, stating that the revised seniority list dated 19.12.2017 was published in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 6345/2002 and WP(C) No.4396/2008.

We heard Shri Anil Singal, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Piyush Gaur, learned counsel for the respondents.

The various facts mentioned above are borne out by record. The applicants were assigned certain places in the seniority list dated 29.01.2014, and they were also promoted to the post of CE-I on that basis. In the covering letter for the revised seniority list dated 19.12.2017, it is mentioned that the draft seniority list dated 22.12.2016 was circulated, and thereafter the final seniority list is being published in respect of the seniority list, referable to the years 2004, 2008, 2009 and 2011 to 2014. However, the basis for that is not indicated.

In their counter affidavit, the respondents have made an extensive reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 6435/2002 and 4396/2008. The relief in that Writ Petition, in turn, was granted on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar (supra). The relevant paragraph reads as under:-

"26. For the above reasons, we find no merit in WP(C) No. 6345/2002. The same is rejected. WP(C) No. 4396/2008 has to succeed. The findings and reasoning given in OA No. 1694/2006 are, accordingly, unsustainable and are set aside. The UOI is directed to calculate the seniority of the direct recruits and promotes afresh in the light of the orders of this Court in and in the light of the decision in Parmar (supra) within ten weeks. WP(C) No. 4396/2008 is, accordingly, allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs."

It is no doubt true that in N.R. Parmar's case, a principle was laid to the effect that in case the direct recruitment process is delayed for any reason, the candidates selected in the process cannot be denied of the benefit of their seniority vis-a-vis the promotees of the same panel year. However, that judgement was revisited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. vs. Ningam Siro & Ors., Civil Appeal No.8833-8835/2019, and their Lordships specifically overruled it. In Para 40, it was observed that the inter se seniority, which is already decided, on the basis of the judgment in N.R. Parmar's case be not disturbed.

We find a typical situation, obtaining in the instant case. The revised seniority list, no doubt, was published. However, the resultant revision of promotions which have already taken place, was not done. The OA was filed at a time when the respondents were about to revisit the promotion of the applicants. Therefore, even while honouring the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh's case that seniority list, which is already prepared in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in N.R. Parmar, shall not be disturbed, the promotions, which have already been extended to the applicants, cannot, equally be disturbed. It is now for the respondents to examine the steps to be taken in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh.

We accordingly allow the OA in part, by directing that the promotion of the applicants to the post of CE-I shall not be disturbed on the basis of the revised seniority list dated 19.12.2017, and it is for the respondents to take the necessary steps in accordance with law, regarding fixation of the seniority in the post of CE-II. We clarify that the further promotions beyond the post of CE-I shall be without disturbing the positions of the applicants as they exist now. The respondents shall also fix the seniority for the cadre of CE-II, in accordance with law.

Interim order passed earlier shall cease to be in force, in view of the final adjudication. Pending MA, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.