Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dhirendra Kumar vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 29 April, 2025
Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025
with O.A. No.1316/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 839/ 2025 with M.A. No.1125/2025,
No.
M.A. No. 1305/2025 & 1306/2025
With
O.A. No.1316/2025 with M.A. No. 1380/2025
Reserved on: 09.04.2025
Pronounced on: 29.04.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
O.A. No.839/2025
1. Dhirendra Kumar, Age around 47 yrs. S/o. Late Sh. R.
P. Roy. R/o. 52. DDA SFS Flats, Pocket-01,
Pocket Sector 6.
Dwarka, New Delhi-110
110 075.
2. Manish Huria, Age around 48 yrs. S/o. Late Sh. K. L.
Huria, R/o: B-15,
15, Manu Apartment, Mayur Vihar Phase 1,
Delhi-110 091.
3. Sunil Chauhan, Age around 54 yrs. S/o l.ate Sh. D. B. S.
Chauhan, R/o. J-2/10,
2/10, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051.
Delhi
4. Amarjeet
marjeet Singh, Age around 45 yrs. S/o. Sh. Shyam Lal,
R/o. B-1/111,
1/111, Yamuna Vihar. Delhi-110
Delhi 053.
5. Mahesh Kumar, Age around 52 yrs, S/o Sh Lal Singh.
R/o: D-22.
22. Kiran Garden. Uttaram Nagar. Delhi-110
Delhi 059.
6. Amit Kumar. Age around 47 yrs. S/o Sri Upendra
Pandit. R/o. C-20.
20. MBR Enclave, Sector - 23, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110 075.
7. Nirbhay Kant Jha. Age around 47 yrs. S/o Sh. Late Sh.
Uma Kant Jha. R/o. E-73,
73, 1 Floor, Guru Nanak Temple.
Jail Road, New Delhi-110058.
110058.
8. Sunil Kumar, Age around 47 yrs, S/o Sh Shivmuni
Sh
Singh, R/o. Flat No. 94. Pocket-5.
Pocket Sector 2, Rohini, New
Delhi - 110 085
9. Abhay Chaturvedi, Aged around 47 yrs. S/o Mr D. D.
Chaturvedi. R/o: Flat No. 1202. Sanchar Vihar. CGHS Ltd.
Plot no. 15. Sector 4. Dwarka. New Delhi-110
Delhi 078.
10. Praveen Deolia,
lia, Age around 47 yrs. S/o. Shri B. M.
Deolia. R/o. 8/3, First Floor, Roop Nagar, Delhi-110007.
Delhi
11. Sanjeev Kumar. Age around 44 yrs.
S/o. Sh. D. B. Buddha. R/o. D-5/91.
D Sec.-18. Rohini.
Delhi 110 089.
Page 1 of 47
Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025
with O.A. No.1316/2025
12. Baidya Nath Sharma, Age around 47 yrs. S/o Mr
Keshav
hav Sharma, R/o: Flat No. C-169,
C Brotherhood
Apartments, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018.
Delhi
13. Sanjeev Kumar, Age around 51 yrs, S/o Mr Som Nath
R/o: 4/199. First Floor. Subhash Nagar. Delhi-110
Delhi 027.
14. Raghvinder Singh Dabas, Age around 50 yrs. S/o Sh.
Karann Singh Dabas. R/o. 1665, T/17 B-Thana
B Road,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110
110 043.
15. Anil Kumar, Age around 53 yrs. S/o Sh. Shri Krishan,
R/o. 72. Ambika Vihar, Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110087.
Delhi
16. Shaheen Ahmad Neyazi. Age around 51 yrs. S/o, Li
Sh H. A. Neyazi, R/o. B-148,
148, Lane No. 9 Mandawali.
Fazalpur, Delhi-110 092.
17. Anuj Kumar, Age around 50 yrs, S/o. Late Sh. G. S.
Gaur, R/o. C-9/13,
9/13, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053.
Delhi
18. (Mrs.) Mithlesh Kumari. Age around 50 yrs. W/o. Sh.
U. S. Sharma, C-154,
154, CGolf View Apartments, Saket.
New Delhi-110017.
19. Farz Ahmed Bakshi, Age around 55 yrs. S/o Mr V. A.
Bakshi, R/o: House No. B-25.
25. Gali Number 3. Jyoti
Colony. Loni Road, Shahdara. Delhi-110
Delhi 032.
20. Ashwani Dabas, Age around 49 yrs, S/o. Jai Prakash
Dabas. R/o. A-150,
50, 2nd Floor. Saraswati Vihar. Pitampura,
Delhi-110 034.
21. Surya Prakash Dubas, Age around 50 yrs, S/o. Sh Ram
Dhan Dabas. R/o. Village & P.O Ladpur, Delhi-110
Delhi 081.
22. Khushi Ram, Age around 55 yrs. S/O Sh. Dal chand,
R/o: V-185/6,
185/6, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi-110 053.
23. Girish Prakash, Age around 54 yrs. S/o. Sh. Narayan
Singh, R/o. B.37/1 Bhagirathi Vihar, Gokalpuri, Delhi-110
Delhi
094.
24. Sushil Kumar, Age around 54 yrs, S/o Sh. Sohan Lal.
R/o 11. No. 743. Block-C-2,
2, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon 122
017, Haryana.
25. Ashwani Rana, Age around 48 yrs. S/o Late Sh Navraj
Singh Rana, R/o. 75. Engineer Enclave, Pitampura. Delhi-110034.
Delhi 110034.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra with
with Ms. Meenu Sharma, Mr. D N Singh,
Mr. Jatin Prashar)
Versus
Page 2 of 47
Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025
with O.A. No.1316/2025
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, through its
Commissioner, 5th Floor. Dr S. P. Mukherjee Civic Centre,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi-110
Delhi 002. Email:
[email protected] and [email protected].
clomcdhq@ni
2. Mr. O.P. Meena, Age around 59 yrs, S/o Mr Mahender
Pal Singh, Assistant Engincer, Planning Department. SPM
Civic Centre, J.L.N Marg. Delhi-110002.
Delhi
3. Mr Jagbir Singh Khatri, Age around 56 yrs.
S/o Mr. Dalip Singh, Assistant Engineer, M-1,
M Civil Lines
Zonc. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 16, Rajpur Road,
Delhi-110 054.
4. Mr Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Age around 57 yrs, S/o Mr
Devi Sharan Sharma, Assistant Engineer (Quality Control).
Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Ambedkar Stadium. SPM
Civic Centre, JLN
N Marg. New Delhi-110002
Delhi
5. Mr Sanjeev Kumar. Age around 51 yrs. S/o Mr Lachman
Prasad Sharma, Executive Engineer, Project Division - 1.
Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, Delhi-110024
6. Mr Rakesh Kumar Arunesh, Age around 52 yrs, S/o Mr
Chander Mohan Arunesh, Executive Engineer, DEMS (HQ)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi. SPM Civic Centre. JLN
Marg, New Delhi 110 002.
7. Mr Shadab Alam, Age around 38 yrs, S/o Mr Mohd.
Najeem Ali. Executive Engineer (M-III),
(M South Zone.
Pushp Vihar, New Delhi-110
110 017.
8. Mr Athar Mustafa, Age around 51 yrs. S/o Mr Akbar Ali.
Executive Engineer (M-II & DEMS) Civil Lines Zone. 16.
Rajpur Road, Delhi-110
110 054.
9. Mr Deepak Gulati,Age around 32 yrs. S/o Mr Ashok
Kumar Gulati, Assistant Engineer (M-1)
(M Narela Zone,
Delhi-110 040.
10. Mr Bharat Singh. Age around 35 years, S/o Mr.Maharaj
Singh, Assistant Engineer (Building Division - II), Civil
Lines Zone. 16. Rajpur Road, Delhi-110054.
Delhi
11. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Serving as Assistant Engineer
(Civil) in MCD Aged About
out 59 Years, S/o Sh. R.D. Gupta,
R/o D-111,
111, MCD Colony, Azadpur, Delhi-110033.
Delhi
12. Zavvar Kazim, Serving as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in
MCD Aged About 59 years, S/o Sh. Iftikhar Hussain, R/o
150-D, Pkt-J&K,
J&K, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095
Delhi .
...Respondents
Page 3 of 47
Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025
with O.A. No.1316/2025
(B
(Byy Advocate: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj with Ms. Anupama Bansal, Mr. Amit Anand
for R
R- 9 & 10, Mr. Yogesh Sharma with Ms. Sonika Gill for Private Respondents,
Mr. M K Bhardwaj for RR-12
12 & 13)
O.A. No.
No.1316/2025
1. Bharat Singh S/o Sh. Maharaj Singh A-109,
A 3rd floor,
Pandav Nagar Delhi
Delhi-110092
110092 Mobile No. 9971505368.
2. Gaurav kumar S/o Sh. Kaliyan singh H.No.411, Sector 12,
Pratap vihar, Ghaziabad -201009
201009 Mobile no. 8851206407
3. PRAVEEN S/o Sh. RAMAHER SINGH RANA H.NO.443,
PURAN PANA, MUNGESHPUR, DELHI-110039
DELHI Mobile no.
8130203344
4. Sunny Choudhary S/o Mr. Omvir Singh F-105,
F Street No.10,
West Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara Delhi-110094
Delhi Mobile no.
9716003785
5. Shubham Bansal S/o Sh. Pankaj Bansal B-506,
B Best Paradise,
Sec
Sec-19, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075
110075 Mobile no. 9828567688
6. Sanjay Kumar Soni S/O SH. SAJJAN KUMAR SONIflat
SF9, HOUSE MM101, DLF ANKUR VIHAR LONI
GHAZIABAD UP 201102 MOBILE No. 8010810974
7. Deepak Gulati S/o sh Ashok Kumar Gulati GH-13/508
GH
Paschim vihar New delhi
delhi-110087
110087 Mobile no. 8810540820.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj)
Bhardwaj
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, through its Commissioner,
5th Floor. Dr S. P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Jawahar Lal Nehru
Marg, New Delhi
Delhi-110 002. Email:
il: [email protected]
and [email protected].
...Respondents
Page 4 of 47
Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025
with O.A. No.1316/2025
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
(J):-
Since a common question of facts and law is involved in the present batch of OAs, they are being disposed of through this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted primarily from O.A. No.839/2025.
2. In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have prayed for the following relief(s):
"(a) Allow the present Original Application and quash the impugned Seniority List of 19.02.2025 being not in accordance with the rules and settled law.
(b) Be pleased to Call for all relevant fi files les and records of the matter before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(c) Be pleased to grant stay on the operation of the impugned Seniority List of the Assistant Engineer (Civil) dated 19.02.2025 till disposal of the present Original Application.
(d) Pass any otherr order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were appointed on the post of Junior Engineer eer (Civil). The applicants were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on regular basis on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting held on 05.09.2023.
Page 5 of 47Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025
4. He further drew our attention to the brief information aabout the applicants which is as under:
Sl.No. Name (Mr/Mrs.) Batch of JE Seniority Year Seniority (Civil) of AE Number of AE 1. Shaheen Ahmad Neyazi 1997 2019 803 2. Mithilesh Kumari 1997 2019 806 3. Girish Prakash 1997 2019 814 4. Sushil Kumar 1997 2020 830 5. Faiz Ahmed Bakshi 1997 2020 832
6. Khusi Ram 1997 - Ad hoc 7. Ashwani Rana 2000 2020 837 8. Ashwani Dabas 2000 2020 838 9. Anil Kumar 2000 2020 839 10. R.S. Dabas 2000 2020 840 11. S P Dabas 2000 2020 841 12. Manish Huria 2000 2020 842 13. Sunil Chauhan 2000 2020 844 14. Anuj Kumar 2001 2021 861 15. Praveen Deolia 2003 2021 870 16. Abhay Chaturvedi 2003 2022 881 17. Amit Kumar 2004 2022 892 18. Baidya Nath Sharma 2004 2022 894 19. Dhirendra Kumar 2004 2022 896 20. Nirbhay kant Jha 2004 2022 898
21. Sunil Kumar 2004 - Ad hoc 22. Amarjeet Singh 2006 2023 909 23. Sanjeev Kumar 2006 2023 910 24. Mahesh Kumar 2006 2023 911 25. Sanjeev Kumar 2006 2023 912
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the RRs are not in question in so far as the requirement for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) from Junior Engineer (Civil) (Civil), is concerned.. He drew our attention to Recruitment Regulations for the post ooff Assistant Engineer (Civil) in pay scale of Rs.6500--200-10500 in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, relevant portion whereof rreads as under:
Sl. Column Proposed Recruitment Regulations No.
12. In case of recruitment by Promotion:-
promotion/deputation/absorption to be Junior Engineer (Civil) with six years regular made service in the grade in the case of those possessing degree in Civil Engineering and eight years regular service in the grade in case of Page 6 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 those possessing a diploma in Civil Engineering.
Note:-
Where juniors who have completed their qualifying/eligibility service are being considered for promotion their seniors would also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying/eligibility service by more than half of such qualifying/eligibility qua service or two years whichever is less and have successfully completed their probation period for promotion to the next higher grade along with their juniors who have already completed such qualifying/eligibility service.
Deputation/Absorption:-
Officers of Central/State Govt./UTs:-
Govt./UTs:
a)i)Holding analogous posts on regular basis in the parent cadre/department; or
ii) With three years service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 or equivalent in the parent cadre/department; or
iii) With six years service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto onregular basis in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- or equivalent in the parent cadre/department; and
b) possessing the educational qualifications and experience prescribed for direct recruits under col.8.
Departmental officer in the feeder category who are in the direct line of promotion will not be eligible for consideration for appointment on deputation.
Similarly depurationists shall all not be eligible for consideration for appointment by promotion. Period of deputation including period of deputation in another ex--cadre post held immediately preceding this appointment in the same or some other organization/department or the Central Govt.
vt. shall ordinarily not to exceed three years. The maximum age limit for appointment by deputation shall be not exceeding 56 years as on the closing date of the receipt of application.
13. If a DPC exists, what is its composition Group 'B' DPC (for promotion/confirmation):-
promotion/confirmation):
1. Addl. Commissioner, I/C (Estt.), MCD-
MCD Chairman
2. Municipal Engineer Engineer-cum-Engineer-in-
Chief, MCD-Member
3. Director (Personnel), MCD-Member MCD
14. Circumstances in which UPSC to be Consultation with UPSC necessary nece for consulted in making Recruitment amendment/relaxation of any provision of these rules.
Page 7 of 47Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after the recommendation of the DPC meeting, which was held on 05.09.2023, the respondents circulated the Provisional Seniority List of AE (Civil) on 28.08.2024 inviting objections. The applicants submitted th their eir objections with request for personal hearing. However, the respondents without considering the representations of the applicants passed the impugned Final Seniority List of the AE (Civil) dated 19.02.2025. He further submitted that the respondents did not conduct regular DPC meetings since 2007, despite availability of clear vacancies under promotion quota, affecting relative seniority positions of the promotees. He further submitted that the respondents did not fill up the posts under promotion quota inn a fair manner in pursuance of DPC meeting held on 05.09.2023, despite availability of the eligible officers in the promotion quota, affecting relative seniority positions of the Direct Recruits vis-à-vis vis the Promotees in the impugned Seniority List dated 19.02.2025.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that some of the applicants were granted Look After Charge of the post of the AE (Civil) vide Office Order dated 27.08.2021. He further submitted that the Look After Charge/Ad hoc promoti promotions ons were given as the vacancies were very much in existence at the relevant point of time. He illustratively pointed out that the respondents have wrongly assigned Seniority Position to 22 Direct Recruits AE (Civil) of 2018 and 2021 batches from Sl.122 to Page 8 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 143 of the year 2009--10, adversely affecting the seniority positions and promotional avenues of the applicants. He further submitted that the direct recruits AE (Civil) have been assigned seniority of the year 2009 2009- 10 when they were not even borne on the cadre of the AE (Civil). He drew our attention to a Table which is at Pg. no.21 of the O.A., which reads as under:
Sl. Name (Mr. Mrs.) DOB Seniority Year of Age at Given No. AE (C) Seniority
1. Varun 30.11.1993 2009-10 17 Yrs
2. Praveen 17.11.1991 2009-10 19 Yrs
3. Shivender Kumar Yadav 06.09.1992 2009-10 18 Yrs
4. Gaurav Kumar 01.07.1991 2009-10 19 Yrs
5. Subham Bansal 05.06.1992 2009-10 18 Yrs
6. Sanjay Kumar Soni 07.08.1991 2009-10 19 Yrs
7. Deepak Gulati 20.04.1993 2009-10 17 Yrs
8. Sunny Chaudhary 01.09.1993 2009-10 17 Yrs
9. Ram Raj Meena 08.05.1993 2009-10 17 Yrs
10. Ashish Siwach 24.02.1991 2009-10 19 Yrs
11. Laksh Kumar Verma 03.10.1993 2009-10 17 Yrs
12. Gaurav Pathik 19.08.1993 2009-10 17 Yrs
13. Bharat Singh 05.02.1990 2009-10 20 Yrs
8. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the respondents have illegally appointed by absorption 12 former employees of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB). Seven of them have been assigned Seniority Positions in the impugned Seniority List of 19.02.1995 as follows:
Sl. Seniority Position Assigned Name (Mr) No.
1. 754 Rajeev Kumar
2. 755 O.P. Meena
3. 864 Jagbir Singh Khatri
4. 865 Subhit Kumar
5. 866 Jagmohan Sharma
6. 867 Rajesh Rohila
7.. 904 Rajeev Kumar Garg Page 9 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025
9. He further submits that the absorption of the employees of the DUSIB itself was contrary to the Recruitment Rules. He also drew our attention to Clause 11 of the RRs of JE(C) dated 27.03.2006, which reads as under:
"11. Method of Recruitment whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/absorption and percentage of the posts to be filled by various methods.
(A). 5% by departmental recruitment on the basis of A Limited Departmental Competitive Examination to be held by the Engi Engineering neering Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, failing which by direct recruitment. The competitive examination shall be open to the employees of the General Wing of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, possessing Degree or Diploma in Civil Engineering from m a recognized University/Institution, with five years regular service in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (out of which 2 years rendered after acquiring the Diploma in the case of Diploma holders). (In case these 5% vacancies could not be filled up in a par particular ticular ycar due to any reason, the said vacancies shall be carried over to two subsequent years). Note:
Deputation: Vacancies, caused by the incumbents being away on deputation or long illness or study leave or under other circumstances for a duration of one year or more, may be filled by the appointing authority on deputation basis from officers of Central Govt./Govt. of NCT of Delhi/Delhi Local Bodies possessing essential years regular service in the post/grade, This shall, however, not exceed 20% of the total strength. No Officer/official will be eligible for promotion during the period of their deputation. (B) 95% by direct recruitment."
10. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the respondents have merged the cadre of the Technical Officers (TO) of the Municipal Laboratory in the cadre of the AE (Civil) in the year 2016 2016, and that these hese former TOs have been illegally assigned positions in the impugned Seniority List of 19.02.2025 by the respondents adversely affecting the seniority ppositions ositions and promotional avenues of the Page 10 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 Applicants. Learned counsel further stated that the merger of cadre of TO with the cadre of AE (Civil) is illegal for the following reasons:
a. The UPSC was not consulted prior to the merger of the cadre of the TO with th the cadre of the AE (C), in violation of provisions under Column No. 14 of the RR of the AE (Civil) for consultation with the UPSC. b. There is no such method of recruitment under the RR of the AE (Civil). c. After merger of a cadre, the merged cadre cceaseseases to exist post-merger.
post However, the cadre of the TO in the Municipal Laboratory is still functional, despite its merger in the year 2016 because 3 TOs still continue to serve as TO in the Municipal Laboratory.
d. On the date of illegal merger, there w were ere 7 TOs in the cadre. 4 TOs were merged with the cadre of the AE (C) and 3 TOs remained in the cadre of the TO and they are continuing in the cadre of TO in the Municipal Laboratory. Thus, the cadre of the TO has not been effectively and practically merg merged.
e. The post of TO was not a feeder cadre for promotion to the Executive Engineer (Civil), next promotional post of the AE (Civil). f. In the Provisional Seniority List of 28.08.2024, the two TOs were assigned positions in the Seniority List against pro promotion motion quota, while remaining two TOs were assigned positions in the Seniority List against DR Quota, which is illegal. The posts under promotional quota cannot be assigned to merged cadre or to such illegal appointments.
g. Prior to the merger of the two cadres, the Respondent No. 1 did not obtain relaxation in the RR of the AE (Civil) from the competent authority for merger of the cadre of TO with AE (Civil)."
11. Opposing the grant of relief, Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Anupama Bansa Bansal, l, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no specific challenge to the status of the Technical Officer (TO) and their merger. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. vs. Ningam Siro & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.8833-8835 8835 of 2019), wherein it is explicitly held that th seniority is to be assigned from thedate on which an employee is borne on the cadre and there is no concept of retrospective seniority. He further contended that it is the panel year which is relevant for the purpose of Page 11 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 holding DPC, and that the date of seniority is not a relevant consideration at all, as the vacancies have to be calculated year wise and then the zone of consideration has been prepared year wise in terms of relevant DOP&T guidelines and therefore, when the promotions are made made, the panel year is indicated and the promotees they are arranged as per the panel.
12. He further submitted that after considering the representations/objections of the applicants as per the DOPT instructions contained in OM dated 13.08.2021, issued in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra), and after the approval of the competent authority, seniority of Assistant Engineer Engineers (Civil) has been finalized and circulated vi videe Circular dated 19.02.2025.
He further submitted that the representations of the applicants have been disposed of and they have been intimated accordingly vide letter dated 20.03.2025. For the sake of better appreciation, some of the principles discussed and laid down in the DOPT's OM dated 13.08.2021 are reproduced as under:
"that the fundamental principles of determining inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees in Central Civil Services/posts were laid down in the Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT) O.M. No. 9/11/55 9/11/55-RPS dated 29.12.1959,whichh inter alia provided that, the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees shall he determined according to the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees, which shall be based on the quotas of vacancies, provided in the Recruitme Recruitment nt Rules for direct recruitment and promotion respectively.Page 12 of 47
Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025
2. The carry forward of unfilled slots of a vacancy year, to be filled up by direct recruits of later years. was dispensed with through modified instructions contained in DoPT G.M. No. 35014/2/80-Estt. Estt. (D) dated 7.2.1986 which provides that rotation of quotas for the purpose of determining seniority would take place only to the extent of available direct recruits and the promotees. The unfilled direct recruitment/promotion quota vacancie vacancies would be carried forward and added to the corresponding direct recruitment/promotion quota vacancies of the next year (and to subsequent years where necessary) for determining the total number of direct recruitment or promotion vacancies to be filled up as per usual practice. For determining inter-se se seniority between direct recruits and promotees, it would be done as per rotation of quota to the extent of number of vacancies for direct recruits and promotees, as determined according to the quota for that year and the additional direct recruits/promotees selected against the carried forward vacancies of the previous year, to be placed en en-bloc bloc below the last promotee/direct recruit, as the case may be, in the seniority list. All the existing instructions on seniority were consolidated by DoPT through a single O.M. No. 2201 1/7/86 1/7/86-Estt(D) dated 03.07.1986.
3. Subsequently, vide O.M. No. 20011/1/2006 20011/1/2006-Estt.
Estt. (D) dated 3.3.2008, the term 'available' as provided in OMs dated 7.2.1986/3.7.1986 was sought to be clarified, ified, wherein it was clarified that the actual year of appointment, both in the case of direct recruits and promotees, would be reckoned as the year of availability for the purpose of rotation and fixation of inter se seniority. This was, however, challen challenged ged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7514-7515/2005 7515/2005 in the case of N.R. Parmar v/s Union of India & Others. In its judgement dated 27.11.2012 in the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the available direct recruits and promotees, for assignment of inter se seniority, would refer to the direct recruits and promotees who are appointed against the vacancies of a particular recruitment year, where the recruitment year shall be the year in which the recruitment process for ei either of the modes of recruitment (direct recruitment or promotion) for a particular vacancy year is initiated viz, initiation of recruitment process against a vacancy year would mean the date of sending of requisition for filling up of vacancies to the rec recruiting ruiting agency in the case of direct recruits or the date on which a proposal, complete in allrespects, is sent to UPSC/Chairman UPSC/Chairman- DPC for convening of DPC to fill up vacancies earmarked for promotion.
4. The law laid down in the N.R. Parmar case relating tto o determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees in a grade/post was reviewed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 88833 88833- 8835 of 2019 [arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 1956519565-19567 19567 of 2019] in the matter of K. Meghachandra chandra Singh & Ors. Vs Ningam Siro & Ors Ors.. In its Order dated 19.11.2019 in CA No. 8833 8833-35/2019 of K. Meghachandra Singh &Ors. Vs Ningam Siro & Ors Ors,, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has overruled the decision of the Court in NR Parmar case.Page 13 of 47
Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025
5. In para 40 of the Order dated 19.11.2019, the Hon'ble Court inter inter-alia held that "the law on the issue is correctly declared in J. C'. Patnaik (Supra,), consequently, we disapprove the norms on assessment of inter inter-se seniority, suggested in N. R. Parmar (Supra,). Ac Accordingly, cordingly, the decision in N.R. Parmar is overruled, however, it is made clear that this decision will not affect the inter-se se seniority already based on N.R. Parmar and the same is protected. This decision will apply prospectively except where seniority iis to be fixed under the relevant Rules from the date of vacancy/the date of advertisement."
Further. in para 38, the Hon 'ble court had held as under:
"38. When we carefully read the judgment in N. R. Parmar Supra,), it appears to us that the referred OMs ('dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986) were not properly construed in the judgment. Contrary to the eventual finding, the said two 0/Vs had made it clear that seniority of the direct recruits be declared only from the date of appointment and not from the date of initiation of recruitment process. But surprisingly, the judgment while referring to the illustration given in the OM infact overlooks the effect of the said illustration. According to us, the illustration extracted in the N. R. Parmar 'Supra,) itself makes it clear that the vacancies which were intended for direct recruitment in a particular year (1986) which were filled in the next year (1987) could be taken into consideration only in the subsequent year's seniority list but not in the seniority list of 1986. In fact, this was indicated in the two OMs dated 07.02. 1986 and 03.07.1986 and that is why the Government issued the subsequent OM on 03.03.2008 by way of clarification of the two earlier OMs.
6. The determination of inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in its Order dated 19.11.2019 in K. Meghachandra Singh case, has been carefully examined in consultation with theDepartment of Legal Affairs, and the following principles have emerged:-
(i) The rotation of quota, based on the percentage of vacancies allocated to direct recruitment and promotion in the notified recruitment rules/service rules, shall continue to operate for determining vacancies to be filled by the respective quotas iin a recruitment year. The term 'recruitment year' shall mean the year in which the vacancy arises. However, inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees, who are appointed against the vacancies of respective quota, would be reckoned with refere reference nce to the year in which they are appointed i.e. year in which they are borne in the cadre or final appointment order is issued.
(ii) The terms recruitment' and appointment' have to be read harmoniously and the determination of seniority for recruitees would depend on their actual appointment and not the initiation of recruitment process itself It thus follows that the seniority of direct Page 14 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 recruits and promotees henceforth stands delinked from the vacancy/year of vacancy.
(iii) The source of legitimacy of determination of seniority would be with reference to the date of joining of a person against a vacancy.
irrespective of the fact tthat hat it may have arisen in the previous year(s) and not being a carried forward vacancy of any quota.
(iv) If adequate number of direct recruits (or promotees) do not become available, "rotation of quotas' for the purpose of determining seniority, would ststop op after the available direct recruits and promotees are assigned their slots on joining in a particular year.
(v) The term 'availabl&. both in the case of direct recruits as well as promotees, for the purpose of rotation and fixation of seniority, shall bee the actual year of appointment after declaration of results/selection and completion of prepre-appointment appointment formalities as prescribed.
(vi) Thus, appointees who join in the concerned recruitment year and those who join in subsequent year(s), would figure in the seniority list of the respective years of their being appointed. To that extent it may not be necessary to go into the question of quota meant for direct recruits and promotees to find out as to the year in which the vacancy arose against which the recrecruitment is made.
7. Based on the above, it has been decided to modify the instructions relating to determination of inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits as under:
(i) DoPT's O.M. No. 20011/1/2012 20011/1/2012-Estt.(D) Estt.(D) dated 4.3.2014. issued in pursuance uance of Order dated 27.11.2012 in N.R. Parmar case. is treated as non-est/withdrawn est/withdrawn well 19.11.2019.
(ii) As the Order dated 19.11.2019 is prospective, cases of inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotes, already decided in terms of O.M. No. 2001 1/1/2012-Estt. Estt. (D) dated 4.3.2014, shall not be disturbed. i.e. old cases are not to be reopened.
(iii) In case of direct recruits and promotees appointed/joined during the period between 27.11.2012 and 18.11.2019 and in which case inter se seniority could not be finalised by 18.11.2019, shall also be governed by the provisions of O.Ms. dated 7.2.1986/3.7.1986 read with OM dated 4.3.2014, unless where a different formulation/manner of determination of seniority has been decided by any Tribunal or Court.
(iv)) For cases where the recruitment process has been initiated by the administrative Department/Cadre Authority before 19.11.2019 and where some appointments have been made before 19.11.2019 and remaining on or after 19.11.2019, the inter se seniority of dir direct recruits and promotes, shall also be governed by the provisions of O.Ms. dated 7.2.1986/3.7.1986 read with OM dated 4.3.2014 to ensure equal treatment of such appointees.Page 15 of 47
Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025
(v) For recruitments initiated on or after 19.11.2019 as well as for future recru recruitments, itments, in addition to cases where the recruitment process has been initiated by the administrative Department/Cadre Authority before 19.11.2019, but where alt appointments, subsequent to the initiation of recruitment process, ess, could be made only on oor after 19.11.2019 i.e. date of order of Apex Court, the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotes shall be determined in the following manner-
(a) The rotation of quota based on the percentage of vacancies allocated to direct recruitment and pro promotion motion in the notified recruitment rules/service rules, shall continue to operate for determination of vacancies to be filled by the respective quotas in a recruitment year.
(b) Determination of inter inter-se se seniority between direct recruits and promotees, who areappointed against the vacancies of respective quota. would, however, be reckoned with reference to the year in which they areappointed i.e. year in which they are borne in the cadre or formal appointment order is issued. In case. where the recruitment year is the same as the year of appointment. the appointees shall be given seniority of that year.
(c) Where in case of promotees or direct recruits, the year of appointment is the next year or any year subsequent to the recruitment year. the seniority of such promotees and direct recruits would be determined with reference to the year of their actual joining/appointment to the post, since they were not able to join in the said recruitment year in which the vacancy arose. Thus, they would get seniority of tthe he year in which they actually join i.e. year in which formal appointment order is issued or they are borne in the service/cadre and that they shall not get seniority of any earlier year (viz. year of Vacancy/panel or year ear in which recruitment process is initiated).
(d) In terms of OMs dated 7.2.1986/3.7.1986, rotation between promotees and direct recruits for the purpose of determination of inter inter-se se seniority, would be undertaken only to the extent of available direct recruits and promotees in a particparticular year. The term 'available direct recruits or promotees' appearing in these OMs dated 7.2.1986/3.7.1986, for the purpose of rotation of quota in fixation of inter inter-se se seniority. shall mean the actual number of direct recruits and promotees appointed dur during the year after declaration of results/selection and completion of pre--appointment formalities as prescribed.
(e) As per (d) above, if adequate number of direct recruits (or promotees) do not become available in a particular year, the Page 16 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 rotation of quotas quotas"" for the purpose of determining inter se seniority, would stop after the available direct recruits and promotes are assigned their slots on their appointment/joining in that year.
(f) If no direct recruit is available in a particular year. available prom promotees otees would be bunched together in accordance with their position in the panel approved for promotion. Similarly, if no promotee is available in that year, available direct recruits would be bunched together, as per their position obtained in the selection process.
(g) In case, where direct recruits or promotees, as the case may be, belonging to two more selections/panel approved for promotion. join in the same year, then those who have been appointed/joined as a result of earlier selection/panel would be placed laced senior in the seniority list to those been appointed/joined as a result of a subsequent selection/panel.
(h) Instructions contained in OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986, stand modified to the extent indicated in above paragraphs.
8. These provisions sh shall all come into effect from 19.11.2019 onwards."
13. Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the private respondents no. 9 & 10, opposed the grant of relief and also argued that there is no prayer for taking into consideration on the Ad hoc service or look after charge for the purpose of seniority. He further submitted that the grounds urged do not co-relate relate or match with the relief sought in the prayer. He relied upon para '3' of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent respondentss no. 9 & 10, which reads as under:
"3. That the Respondent No. 1 MCD issued final seniority list of AE(Civil) vide Circular No. F.8(45)/CED/MCD/2024/2025/GF F.8(45)/CED/MCD/2024/2025/GF-05/6778 05/6778 dated 19.02.2025 strictly after complying with the rules and guidelines set forth by the DoPT and after duly considering the objections raised by all the stakeholders through written submissions and through personal hearing. The respondent No. 9 & 10 have been placed at seniority No. 669 & 675 respectively along with the other 2021 DQ AE(Civil AE(Civil)) batch candidate at seniorities mentioned at Table Table-1 1 above. The 2021 DQ AE (Civil) batch candidate as seniority position mentioned in Circular No. F.8(45)/CED/MCD/2024/2025/GF F.8(45)/CED/MCD/2024/2025/GF-05/677805/6778 dated 19.02.2025. Copy of the seniority list has already been annexed iinn the Original Applicants by the Page 17 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 applicants. The answering respondents are placed above the applicants in seniority list after considering all the DoPT instructions, objections of the applicants and the same is correct as per law of land. That a bare perus perusal of the seniority list makes it crystal clear that applicants have mislead the Hon'ble Tribunal in as much as contesting respondents have been granted seniority from the year of the result and as per their rank in the examination."
14. Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel, further submitted that the promotes in the cadre of the Junior Engineers (Civil) were promoted in the year 2023 to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) by a regular DPC following the rules and regulations only in the year 2023 2023, and thus were rightly placed below the applicants who had been appointed in the year 2021. He further submitted that the seniority can only be assigned in the cadre of promotion when the said person enters regularly in the promotion cadre.
15. He also drew our atte attention to DOPT OM dated 03.04.2013 regarding add hoc appointment/promotion, which reads as under:
"As already provided in this Department's O.Μ. No.22011/3/75 No.22011/3/75-Estt. (D) dated 29th October, 1975, and reiterated in O.M. No.28036/8/87 No.28036/8/87-Estt. (D) dated 30.03.1988 and O.M. No.28036/1/2001-Estt.(D) Estt.(D) dated 23.07.2001, an ad-hoc hoc appointment does not bestow on the person a claim for regular appointment and the service rendered on adad-hoc hoc basis in the grade concerned also does not count for the purpose of seniority in tha thatt grade and for eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade. As per existing provisions, these facts are to be clearly spelt out in the orders of the ad ad-hoc hoc promotions/ ad-hoc ad appointments. Therefore, such ad ad-hoc hoc arrangements are neither in the interest inte of the individuals nor the organizations concerned. It is, thus, not appropriate to resort to ad-hoc hoc arrangements in a routine manner."
16. He further submitted that in the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by this Tribunal, it is observed that that, Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the promotions are made strictly, in terms of the eligibility and pursuant to Page 18 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 Recruitment Rules as well as application of the OM dated 25.03.1996. He submitted that the ad hoc service cannot be counted towards seniority. He also relied upon the following judgments:
i). Malook Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab Ors. in Civil Appeal No.6026-6028 6028 of 2021.
ii). Rashi Mani Mishra & Ors. vs. State of UP - Civil Appeal No.10788/2016.
iii). Dinesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan & Ors. - Writ Petition No.936 of 2018.
17. Mr. M K Bhardwaj, learned counsel, appeared for respondents no.
11 & 12. Though he has not filed a counter affidavit, he hhas filed a separate Misc. Application No.1380/2025 seeking impleadment in the present matter. He submitted that the issue herein is seniority as well as eligibility. He further submitted that the eligibility has to be determined as per the Recruitment Rule Rules.
s. He also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.1738/2017 dated 01.07.2019 in the matter of Union of India & Anr. vs. Himanshu Prabhakar & Ors. For the sake of better appreciation, the relevant paras of the said judgment udgment are reproduced herein below:
"55. We may also observe that it is only the writ petitions preferred by the Union of India which were dismissed as withdrawn and, premised on the said withdrawal, this Court did not permit the Union of India to pursue W.P.(C.) No.7743/2018 titled Union of India & Others Vs. Rajeev Kumar & Others. However, the said withdrawal of the writ petitions in Garima Singh (supra) and other related writ petitions, as well as the order passed by this Court in Rajeev Kumar (supra) oon n 29.10.2018 do not bind the Promotees, who have independently assailed the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, since they Page 19 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 are adversely affected thereby. Thus, even if, forthe sake of arguments it were to be assumed that the Union of India is precluded from contending contrary to the decision in Garima Singh (supra) before this Court (which submission we have already rejected), the Promotees are not shut shut-out out or barred from contending so. Thus, the submission that Garima Singh (supra) has not been correctly tly decided is open to consideration before this Court, at least, at the instance of the Promotees.
********
60. Firstly, we may observe that the Tribunal in that case proceeded on the premise that the OM dated 19.07.1989 lay down, as a matter of policy, tthat where the junior had completed the eligibility requirement of promotion then their seniors should also be considered, even if they have not completed the eligibility period. The OM dated 19.07.1989 reads as follows:
"DPT OFFICE MEMORANDUM No.22011/7/86 No.22011/7/86-Estt.
Estt. (D) dt. 19-7- 19 1989.
Subject:- Eligibility of officers to be considered for promotion by DPC DPC-
fixing of crucial date of -
The undersigned is directed to say that where the recruitment rules lay down promotion as one of the methods of recruitment, some period of service in the feeder grade is generally prescribed as one of the conditions of eligibility for the purpose of promotion. There are, however, no instructions about the crucial date with reference to which eligibility of Government servants in th thee feeder cadre should be determined for the purpose of promotion through Departmental Promotion Committees. The matter has been under consideration in thisDepartment and it has now been decided that while holding DPCs during a year, the crucial dates for ddetermining etermining the eligibility of Officers for promotion would be prescribed as under:
under:-
(1) Ist July of the year in cases where ACRs are written calendar yearwise; and
(ii) Ist October of the year where ACRs are written financial year year-wise.
2. The crucial date datess indicated above would be applicable to only such services and posts for which Statutory Service Rules detention order not prescribe a crucial date.
3. effect. These instructions will come into force with immediate
4. In this connection, attention is also invited to para 3.1.2 of this Department's O.M. No. AB AB-14017/12/87-EsttEstt (RR) dated 18th March, 1988 in which all Ministries/ Departments etc. had been requested to insert a note in the recruitment rules for various posts to the effect that when juniors whwhoo have completed the eligibility period are considered for promotion, that seniors would also be considered irrespective of whether they have completed the requisite service provided they have completed the probation period. In order to ensure that seniors who might have joined later due to various reasons are not overlooked for promotion, necessary action for amendment of recruitment rules may please be taken urgently wherever this has not been done by now.
5. These instructions may please be brought to th thee notice of all concerned including attached and subordinate offices for guidance and compliance." (emphasis supplied) Page 20 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025
61. The said OM, firstly, fixes the crucial dates for determining the eligibility of officers for promotion. Paragraph 4 of the said OM sought to remind the Ministries/ Departments to take steps in terms of OM dated 18.03.1988. It did not lay down, as a mamatter tter of rule or policy, that all Ministries/ Departments should mandatorily amend their Recruitment Rules.The interpretation of the OM dated 19.07.1989 was, evidently, not undertaken by the Supreme Court in Sadhana Khanna (supra), and it merely proceeded on n the basis of the interpretation adopted by the Tribunal. Sadhana Khanna (supra) also shows that even though R. Prabha Devi (supra) was noticed by it in paragraph 9 of its decision, there was no discussion with regard to the law laid down in R. Prabha Devi (supra). The decision in Sadhana Khanna (supra) proceeded on the assumption that the OM dated 19.07.1989 mandatorily required the Ministries/ Departments to amend their Recruitment Rules to enable the seniors to be considered for promotion when they have not completed the approved service, whenever their juniors who are eligible, are considered. The decision in Sadhana Khanna (supra) would be a binding precedent only in that fact situation, and cannot be cited as a precedent in a fact situation where the OMs issued by the Government, from time to time, beginning 18.03.1988, do not mandatorily lay down that all the Ministries/ Departments of the Central Government should necessarily amend their Recruitment Rules so as to render the ineligible seniors as qua qualified lified to participate in the promotion process whenever their juniors - who are eligible, are considered. Thus, in our view, the decision in Sadhana Khanna (supra) is of no avail to the Direct Recruits.
*******
64. Thus, it is clear to us that the decision taken by the Union of India not to exercise their power of relaxation contained in Rule 23 of the CSS Rules, 2009 was not arbitrary or illegal. The decision of the Union of India in that regard should not have been lightly interfered with by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order.
65. There is one other aspect which we wish to observe and state at this stage. We find that the Direct Recruits have come into the CSS as Direct Recruit Assistants, whereas the Promotees came into the CSS after rendering service in the Central Secretariat Clerical Service (CSCS). Thus, the age band in which they fall is in the range of 45 45-55 55 years. However, the Direct Recruits are still very young and their age band is between 25 25-35 35 years. Thus, the "grave injustice" that the Direct Recruits are crying about,in any event, is not something that would last during the lifetime of their service. Since the Promotees would be phased out of service much earlier in point of time on account of their superannuation, when compared to the Direct Recruits, the Direct Recruits would not, in any event, suffer a lasting disadvantage.
66. For all the aforesaid reasons, we allow the writ petitions and quash the impugned common order passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Applicationss leaving the parties to bear their respective costs."
18. He further submitted that the promotions have been accorded either by counting of Ad hoc service or from the date of regular appointment.
Page 21 of 47Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 He submitted that the private respondents no.11 & 12 are in the zone of consideration in terms of Order dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure A A-8, Pg.
No.185 of the O.A.) at Sl. 727 and 726 respectively.
19. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents and private respondents respondents,, Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the respondents illegally appointed 12 former employees of DUSIB on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) by absorption, and seven of these former DUSIB employees have been assigned seniority ity positions in the impugned Seniority List dated 19.02.2025. He further submitted that absorption as a method of recruitment/appointment is not provided in the RRs for the post of JE (Civil). Therefore, the appointment by absorption of DUSIB employees by the respondents is illegal appointment.
20. Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicants, drew our attention to an order dated 27.03.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.1096/2025, which reads as under:
"Learned counsel appearing for the appli applicant cant submits that he has filed present O.A. seeking direction to the respondent to treat the applicant as promoted to the post of the Assistant Engineer (Civil) on regular basis w.e.f. 27.08.2021 and reckon the period spent on look after chargeof the post for recasting the seniority list which has already attained finality vide circular dated 19.02.2025 and grant all consequential benefits.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, submits that applicant has neither disclosed materia materiall facts in Para 7 of the O.A. nor made any arguments in O.A. that applicant no. 1 in O.A./839/2025, whereby the same applicant is arrayed as applicant no. 1 seeking quashment of seniority list dated 19.02.2025 on identical grounds as respondent has not resresponded to provisional seniority as well as final seniority dated 19.02.2025.Page 22 of 47
Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submits that on preliminary contention, this petition deserves to be dismissed as applicant has suppressed material facts aand nd Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of the Auroville Foundation vs. Natasha Storey in Civil Appeal No. 13651/2024 decided on 17.03.2025 has held that it is the matter of trite law that suppression of material facts before a Court amounts to abuse of process ooff Court and shall be dealt with heavy hand and the O.A. deserves to be dismissed on the preliminary contention that applicant has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant, at this stage, prays for permission ssion to withdraw the present O.A. to agitate the grounds challenging seniority list dated 19.02.2025 in O.A./839/2025.
5. In view of above, the present Original Application stands dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty."
21. Learned counsel for the applicants also relied upon the decision dated 08.05.2013 rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 2059/2021 in the matter of Sunil Kumar Mehra vs. MCD & Anr. For the sake of better appreciation, the relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced herein below:
"20. On April 12, 2013, a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us namely, Pradeep Nandrajog J. was a member of, had decided a batch of writ petitions, lead matter being WP (C) No. 8102/2012 UOI v. K.L. Taneja on the subject as to when can a person be granted promotion from a retrospective date. The Bench had noted various decisions of the Supreme Court on the point as under: -
(i) (1987) 4 SCC 566 K. Madhavan v. UOI
(ii) 1989 Supp (2) SCC 625 Union of India v. K.K. Vadera
(iii) (1995) 4 SCC 246 Vinod Kumar Sangal v. UOI
(iv) (1998) 7 SCC 44 Baij Nath Sharma v. Hon'ble High Court & Jodhpur
(v) AIR 2004 SC 255 P.N. Premachandran v. The State of K Kerela erela
(vi) AIR 2004 SC 3460 Sanjay K. Sinha v. State of Bihar
(vii) 2006 (13) SCALE 246 State of Uttaranchal v. Dinesh Kr. Sharma
(viii) (2008) 14 SCC 29 Nirmal Chandra Sinha v. UOI
(ix) (2010) 4 SCC 290 UOI v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan ********
23. What is meant nt by 'malice'?
24. Malice is of two kinds one, 'Malice in Fact' and two, 'Malice in Law'.
'Malice in fact' is ill ill-will will or spite towards a party and any indirect or improper motive in taking an action. 'Legal Malice' or 'Malice in Law' means 'something done without lawful excuse'. In other words, 'it is an act wrongfully done without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill-will will or spite'. (See the decision of the Supreme Court reported as S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India AIR 1979 SC 49) Page 23 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 ******
26. From the above above-noted noted cauldron of facts, one question which stares us in the face is that: What was the MCD doing regarding convening of DPC for making promotion to the post of Additional Town Planner for the vacancy year 1997 forr the period from July 01, 1996 i.e. the date when the vacancy had arisen till September 06, 2006 when the Director (Personnel), MCD prepared a note for convening a DPC?
*******
28. MCD was under a legal duty to convene a DPC to make promotion to the post of Additional Town Planner in respect of the vacancy year 1997 because a vacancy arose on July 01, 1996 when Mr. Ashok Kumar Khanna superannuated a day prior. MCD did not do the needful but waited for 9 long years to convene the DPC in question. The actio action n of MCD of delaying the convening of DPC in question for a period of 9 long years without there being any lawful excuse for same amounts to 'Malice in Law'.
29. As held in K.L. Taneja' case (supra), retrospective promotion can be made in a case where the DPC was not held at the required time and such delay is attributable to 'malice'. Since in the instant case, we have held that the delay of 9 years caused by MCD in convening DPC in question is attributable to 'malice in law', the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the post of Additional Town Planner from a retrospective date, which in the present case would be January 07, 1998 i.e. the date when the petitioner was promoted to the post of Additional Town Planner on ad ad-hoc basis.
30. There is another sside to the present matter.
31. It is well settled legal position that where an incumbent is initially appointed to a post as per the applicable Rules, whether on ad ad-hoc basis or otherwise and is later on regularly promoted to said post,his seniority to the said post has to be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment and not from the date of his confirmation/regularization. However, where the initial appointment is not made as per the Rules but is only a stopstop-gap gap arrangement, the period of officiati officiation on in such post cannot be taken into account for determination of seniority.
32. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the ad ad-hoc hoc promotion of the petitioner to the post of Additional Town Planner was in terms of the applicable Recruitment Rules. In view of above legal position, it has to be held that the seniority of the petitioner on the post of Additional Town Planner has to be reckoned from the date of his adad-hoc hoc appointment to the said post. As a necessary corollary thereof, the adad-hoc service rendered by the petitioner on the post of Additional Town Planner shall be counted towards his regular service on the said post.
33. As regards the office memorandum dated April 10, 1989, the same would be applicable if DPCs are held as required by the of office fice memorandums noted by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Sahadeva Singh's case (supra).
34. In view of above discussion, we allow the present petition and hold that the date of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Additional Town Planner be treated eated as January 07, 1998 i.e. the date when the petitioner was promoted to said post of ad-hochoc basis; the seniority of the petitioner on the post of Additional Town Planner should be reckoned from the date of his adhoc appointment to said post and the ad ad-hoc hoc service rendered by the petitioner on Page 24 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 the post of Additional Town Planner shall be counted towards his regular service on the said post.
35. No costs."
22. He further relied upon the decision rendered by the Co Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal dated 07.03.2012 in O.A. No.280/2008 and batch in the matter of Y.S. Chaudhary and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. For the sake of better appreciation, the relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced herein below:
"The issue involved in the above OAs is whether the delay in convening meeting of the DPCs by the respondents (Railway Board) in the case of the applicants was due to reasons beyond control or because of administrative delay/inefficiency and what would be the consequence if the delay on thehe part of the respondents is not found to be explained/justified.For the sake of convenience, it would be necessary to briefly record the facts of the case in Writ Petition (C) No. 2020/2011 [arising out of OA No. 280/2008 filed by Shri Y.S. Chaudhary and Others].
In this OA the applicant and four others were Group 'B' officers and had been substantively appointed in Group 'A'/Junior Scale of the IRSE with effect from 14.1.2005 vide Ministry of Railways Notification dated 23.03.2005 and their revised inter se seniority in IRSE on their promotion to Group A from Group B was circulated vide Ministry of Railways notification dated 18.5.2006. They were aggrieved by the delayed induction from Group B to Group A. Being dissatisfied, they approached the tribunal iinn OA No. 280/2008 for setting aside the notification dated 18.5.2006 issued by the respondent inducting the applicants in Group A Junior Scale of IRSE with effect from 14.1.2005, instead of from 2002 2002-03 03 when the vacancies arose and further to direct the respondents spondents to give them the promotion/induction in Group A Junior Scale IRSE from the date when the vacancies arose in 2002 2002-03 03 instead from 14.1.2005 when the DPC was conducted.
*******
16. We may, at the outset, briefly advert to the instructions of the G Government of India with regard to the constitution and functioning of DPCs. The various instructions on this subject have been updated and consolidated in the form of "Guidelines on Departmental Promotion Committee" and have been circulated vide DoPT's OM No. 22011/5/86-Estt. Estt. (D), dated 10.04.1989 as amended by OM No. 22011/5/91 22011/5/91-Estt.
Estt. (D), dated 27.03.1997. These instructions interalia provide for timely convening of DPCs and prescribe that That DPC should meet at regular annual intervals to draw up the pan panels to be utilized for the promotions over a year.
Action should be initiated well in advance without waiting till a vacancy occurs.Page 25 of 47
Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 Convening of DPC meeting can be dispensed with only after a certificate is issued by the Appointing Authority that there ar aree no vacancies to be filled that year.
17. The main focus and emphasis in all the instructions issued on this subject is that Ministries/Departments should take action to fill up posts in time so as to ensure that there is no delay and that the DPC panel sshould hould be available in advance for vacancies arising over a year. This was emphasized even at the level of the Prime Minister as would be seen from the DoPT's OM No. 23036/3/77-Estb.
Estb. (D) dated 7.10.1977 (Annexure P 2), the relevant portion of which is extractedbelow:
ctedbelow:
"The Prime Minister has noted that in a number of cases appointments are made adhoc either because Recruitment Rules have not been finalized or there has been delay in the filling up of the posts in a regular manner. The Prime Minister has, the therefore, refore, desired that Ministries/Departments should take action to fill up the posts in good time before vacancies actually occur in order to avoid adhoc appointment. In case where there is unjustifiable delay, responsibility for the delay should be assigneassignedd and those responsibleshould be suitably dealt with it".
********
19. In fact, Government went to the extent of prescribing that any delay should be treated as a very serious lapse and, therefore, another OM No. 22011/9/98 22011/9/98- Estt. (D) dated 14.12.2000 was issued by the DoPT, prescribing that in the event of non-adherence adherence to the time time-frame, frame, responsibility for the lapse be fixed. The relevant portion of the said OM is extracted below:
"G.I., Dept of Per. & Trg., O.M. No. 22011/9/98 22011/9/98-Estt.
Estt. (D), dated the 14th December, 2000.
Non-adherence adherence to prescribed time time-frame frame is responsibility for the lapse to be fixed. a serious concern and The undersigned is directed to invite reference to the Department of Personnel and Training O.M. of even number, dated September 8, 199 1998 8 prescribing a Model Calendar for DPCs in order to ensure that DPCs are convened in advance and approved select panels are prepared well before commencement of the relevant vacancy years. All Ministries/Departments were also requested vide D.O. letter of even number, dated March 29, 2000 of Secretary (Personnel) for strict compliance of the instructions so as to achieve the desired objectives of timely convening of DPCs/preparation of approved select panels within the prescribed timetime-frame. Despite repeated d communications to this effect, some of the Ministries/Departments are yet to implement these instructions. Non--adherence to the prescribed time-frame frame is resulting in continued delay in convening DPCs. The UPSC has, on several occasions in the past, brought ht this not not-so-satisfactory satisfactory position to the notice of the Department of Personnel and Training. This is indeed a matter of serious concern for the Government. Hence, all concerned authorities are once again counseled to ensure adherence to the Model Calend Calendarar which has been devised as a system-improvement improvement measure. In case of non non-adherence adherence to the prescribed time-frame, frame, steps should be taken to fix responsibility for thelapse in this regard.Page 26 of 47
Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025
2. Ministries/Departments are requested to give wide circulation to tthese instructions to ensure strict adherence to the time time-schedule schedule prescribed as per the Model Calendar for DPCs".
20. In the case before us, the vacancies circulated for the exam year 2001, were supposed to be effective from 01.04.2002 on wards but the pan panel was made available w.e.f. 14.01.2005 only, i.e., after a delay of more than three years. The applicant became eligible for promotion in 2001 and was already working on the post on ad ad-hoc hoc basis which would show that the vacancies were also available at tthat hat time but still the applicant was denied the benefit of his regular induction on account of the administrative delay, which was for a period of more than three years.
*********
22. As already mentioned earlier, the respondents have stated in their coun counter that preparatory work for a DPC in the Railways is a time time-consuming consuming process and that "some delay in holding the DPC meetings for these bona fide reasons becomes unavoidable". It is also pointed out that promotion of Group 'B' officers of Zonal Railways to Group 'A' are regulated in terms of Zonal Railways to Group 'A' are regulated in terms of the guidelines contained in DOP&T's OM No. 22011/5/86 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) Estt.(D) dated 10.4.1989. The relevant paras of DoPT instructions with regard to the date from which promoti promotions are to be treated as regular, which are of relevance to this OA, are paras 17.10. and 17.11, and are as under:
"17.10 The general principle is that, promotion of officers included in the panel would be regular from the date of validity of the panel or the date of their actual promotion, whichever is later. 17.11 In cases where the recommendations for promotion are made by the DPC presided over by a Member of the UPSC and such recommendations do not require to be approved by the Commission, the date of C Commission's ommission's letter forwarding fair copies of the minutes duly signed by the Chairman of the DPC or the date of the actual promotion of the officers, whichever is later, should be reckoned as the date of regular promotion of the officer. In cases where the Commission's approval is also required, the date of UPSC's letter communicating its approval or the date of actual promotion of the officer, whichever is later, will be the relevant date. In all other cases, the date on which promotion will be effective wi will ll be the date on which the officer was actually promoted or the date of the meeting of the DPC, whichever is later. Where the meeting of the DPC extends over more than one day the last date on which the DPC met shall be recorded as the date of meeting of the DPC".It is submitted that as per para 17.11, in the cases where the commission's approval is also required, the date of UPSC's letter communicating its approval o the date of actual promotion of the officer, whichever is later, should be reckoned as th thee date of regular promotion of the officer, and, therefore, the promotions giver effect to in case under reference have correctly been from 14.01.2005.
*********
25. It has also been brought to our notice that the DoPT guidelines also lay down the procedur proceduree to be followed where DPC's have not met for a number of years. This is extracted below:Page 27 of 47
Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 "6.4.1 Where for reasons beyond control, the DPC could not be held in an year (s), even though the vacancies arose during that year (or years), the first DPC that meets there after should follow the following procedures.
Determine the actual number of regular vacancies that arose in each of the previous year (s) immediately preceding and the actual number of regular vacancies proposed to be filled in the current yea year separately.
Consider in respect of each of the years those officers only who would be within the field of choice with reference to the vacancies of each year starting with the earliest year onwards.
Prepare a 'Select List' by placing the select list of tthe he earlier year above the one for the next year and so on".
6.4.2.
6.4.3.
6.4.4. Promotions only prospective prospective- While promotions will be made in the order of the consolidated select list, such promotions will have only prospective effect even in cases where the vacancies relate to earlier year (s)". It is the contention of the respondents that Para 6.4.4 prescribed that "promotions will have only prospective effect even in cases where the vacancies relate to earlier year (s)". However, in our view, para 6.4. 6.4.4 is qualified by para 6.4.1 and will have to be read along with it. It would, therefore, apply only in cases where the "DPC could not be held for reasons beyond control". The repeated emphasis in various instructions issued by the DoPT is on convening DPC DPCs/preparing s/preparing of promotion panels in time, and it is not open to the respondents to ignore these instructions and place reliance only on a particular para of the instructions.
26. The crucial question, and in fact the only question, to be decided in this OA is whether the delay on the part of the respondents in convening the relevant DPC was bona fide and for "reasons beyond control" or just the result of administrative laxity/lethargy and could have been avoided. **********
45. In view of the above discussio discussion n and particularly in the context of the Apex Court Judgement in P.N. Premachandran (supra) and the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 2364/2008 and OA No. 1536/2011 (supra), the OA is partly allowed. The impugned notification dated 18.05.2006 8.05.2006 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the request of the applicants herein by convening a review DPC to consider the promotion/induction of the applicants from the date when the vacancies arose in 2002-2003, 2003, and there thereafter after to pass appropriate follow up orders with regard to their seniority in Group 'A'. Action as above may be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
23. He also relied upon the decision dated 27.09.2019 rendered endered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C)2904/2014 in the matter of Union of India vs. Deep Chand Sharma and Ors. 2019 SCC OnLine Del Page 28 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 10302. The relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced herein below:
"5. We have heard the learned cou counsel nsel for parties. After hearing detailed arguments, it emerges that the reason for not holding regular DPCs cannot be attributed to Respondent Nos. 1 to 38. It is not the case of the Petitioners that there were any disciplinary proceedings pending against the said promotees at any point of time, or that any other impediment was created by Respondent Nos. 1 to 38 in holding the DPCs. The only contention raised for delay in holding the DPCs is that prior to 2008, the quota of the promotees in promotion was 40 40%, %, which the Department wanted to revise to 50%. The process of providing for such 50% quota had to pass through different levels/departments and it took considerable time to get the same finally decided, which resulted in delay in conducting the regular D DPC PC by UPSC. In the meantime, in the year 2011 direct recruitment was done and the promotees were put en bloc below the direct recruits of 2011, although their vacancies had been available in the years 2008 2008-09 and 2009-10.10. The consistent stand of the Petitioner oner for notholding DPCs for 3 years is that the same was due to the amendment of the rules of promotion, and not to any cause attributable to the promotees. There is no justified explanation submitted by the Petitioner as to why Respondent Nos. 1 to 38 sh should ould suffer from the delay in conducting the DPCs, which is wholly attributable to the acts of the Petitioner. **************
10. In the aforesaid case also although the promotees were qualified and eligible for promotion, their consideration for promotion was delayed for reasons not attributable to them. Later on, they were promoted in the regular manner, under which circumstances this Court did not interfere with the order of the CAT.
11. Another judgment to be noticed is Debabrata Dash v. Jatindra Prasad Das, (2013) 3 SCC 658 decided on 11th March, 2013 wherein the Supreme Court was pleased to hold that even if a person was promoted on ad ad-hoc basis to a higher post, his seniority could not be counted until a vacancy was available.
In the said judgment, th thee Supreme Court has considered most of the judgments holding the field in the said arena tillthat date and had come to the considered conclusion that the existence of vacancies is a sine qua non for considering a person promoted on ad ad-hoc basis as having been een regularly promoted. Paragraph 51 of that judgment is reproduced hereunder:
"51. We have already indicated above that on 55-1-20022002 or 26-4-2002, 26 there was no vacancy in the cadre of Superior Judicial Service (Senior Branch) for being filled up by promotion. Such vacancy in the Senior Branch Cadre of the service occurred on 15 15-12-2003 2003 and from that date the writ Petitioner has been given benefit of his service rendered in the Fast Track Court. The administrative decision by the Full Court is in accord rd with the 1963 Rules, the 2001 Rules and the legal position already indicated above. The view of the Division Bench in the impugned judgement is legally unsustainable. judgement is liable to be set aside and is set aside." The impugned"Page 29 of 47
Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025
24. Heard counsell for the respective parties at length.
25. Original departmental records in O.A. No.839/2025 are produced in sealed cover and the same are taken on record. The applicant(s) ought to have placed on record their ad ad-hoc hoc promotion order(s) to come out with clean ean hands. In the rejoinder to respo response nse of the official respondents, respondents the applicants have themselves stated as under ::-
"5. That the Applicants became eligible for promotion to the post of the AE (Civil) since vacancy year 2003 onwards, as mentioned under Col. No.5 in the Table below. They were promoted by the Respondent No.1 to the post of the AE (Civil) on LAC/Ad hoc basis since 2013 onwards, as mentioned under Col.
No.6 of the Table Below:
Sl. Name (Mr. Mrs) & Baqtch DOJ as JE (C) Vaca Promotion Qualification [Degree/Diploma of JE ncy as AE (C) in Engineering] g] (C) Year LAC/ Ad eligib Hoc le for prom otion 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Shaheen Ahmad Neyazi, Degree 1997 06.11.1997 2005 11.04.2016/0 in Engineering 3.08.2016 2 Mithilesh Kumari Degree in 1997 06.11.1997 2003 00.00.00/01.
Engineering 01.2013
3 Girish Prakash, Degree in 1997 06.11.1997 2003 25.08.2015/0
Engineering 3.08.2016
4 Sushil Kumar Degree in 1997 19.06.1997 2003 25.08.2015/0
Engineering 3.08.2016
5 Faiz Ahmed Bakshi Degree in 1997 06.04.2001 2007 25.08.2015/0
Engineering 3.08.2016
6 Khushi Ram 1997
7 Ashwani Rana Diploma in 2000 30.08.2000 2008 00.00.00/16.
Engineering 04.2018
8 Ashwani Dabas Diploma in 2000 04.09.2000 2008 00.00.00/25.
Engineering 10.2016
9 Anil Kumar Degree in 2000 30.08.2000 2006 00.00.00/25.
Engineering 10.2016
10 R S Dabas Degree in 2000 25.08.2000 2006 00.00.00/25.
Engineering 10.2016
11 S.P. Dabas Diploma in 2000 30.08.2000 2008 00.00.00/25.
Engineering 10.2016
12 Manish Huria Degree in 2000 11.09.2000 2006 00.00.00/25.
Engineering 10.2016
Page 30 of 47
Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025
with O.A. No.1316/2025
13 Sunil Chauhan Degree in 2000 30.08.2000 2006 00.00.00/05.
Engineering 07.2017
14 Anuj Kumar Diploma in 2001 23.03.2001 2009 00.00.00/17.
Engineering 03.2022
15 Praveen Deolia Degree in 2003 03.11.2003 2009 00.00.00/13.
Engineering 09.2018
16 Abhay Chaturvedi, Degree in 2003 26.03.2003 2009 27.08.2021/0
Engineering 1.04.2022
17 Amit Kumar, Degree in 2004 29.03.2004 2010 27.08.2021/0
Engineering 1.04.2024
18 Baidya Nath Sharma, Degree in 2004 01.04.2004 2010 27.08.2021/0
Engineering 1.04.2024
19 Dhirendra Kumar Degree in 2004 26.07.2002 2011 27.08.2021/0
Engineering 1.04.2024
20 Nirbhay Kant Jha, Degree in 2004 01.04.2004 2010 00.00.00/22.
Engineering 04.2022
21 Sunil Kumar, Degree in 2004 12.04.2004 27.08.2021/0
Engineering 1.04.2022
22 Amarjeet Singh, Degree in 2006 10.04.2006 2012 00.00.00/22.
Engineering 04.2022
23 Sanjeev Kumar, Degree in 2006 13.03.2006 2012 27.08.2021/0
Engineering 1.04.2022
24 Mahesh Kumar, Degree in 2006 10.05.2003 2012 27.08.2021/0
Engineering 1.04.2022
25 Sanjeev Kumar, Degree in 2006 27.01.2006 2012 27.08.2021/2
Engineering 2.04.2024
26. At this stage we may refer to the minutes of the DPC held on 05.09.2023 (Annexure Annexure R2 R2), which reads as under:
"2. The Departmental Promotion Committee was informed that DPCs to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) were held on 23.03.2006, 14.06.2007, 02.08.2007 & 02.03.2009 in the erstwhile MCD, which were reviewed in the year 2011. after that on 22.09.2015 and thereafter on 25.07.2019, by thee Engineering Department of erstwhile North DMC being Nodal Corporation. The DPC was further informed that consequent upon receipt of representation from various Assistant Engineers (Civil) on adhoc and a reference from CVC enclosing copy of two complaints made by Shri Ali Anwar Ansari, MP (Rajya Sabha), in the year 2019, vide which the MP has raised the issue regarding gross violations and irregularities in timely action in convening of DPC for regularization of adhoc AEs pending since 2008-09, 09, Engineering Department of erstwhile North DMC has started the process for holding Review DPC of the original/Review DPCs held in the year 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2015 & 2019 and thereafter fresh/regular DPC. But the Review DPC/Regular DPC could not be convened due to administrative reasons even after fixing the date of Review DPC DPC/
6. Recruitment Rules: The Committee was informed that as per existing notified RRs dated 01.07.2004 to the said post the method of recruitment is as under:
11 Method of recruitment whether by "75% promotion failing which by direct Page 31 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 direct recruitment or by promotion or recruitment failing both by deputation/absorption by and deputation/absorption. 25% direct percentage of the posts to be filled by recruitment failing which by various method deputation/absorption 12 In case of recruitment by Promotion:
promotion/deputation/absorption Junior Engineer (Civil) with six years grades from which regular service in the grade in the case of promotion/deputation/absorption to be those possessing degree in Cual made Engineering and eight years regular service in the grade in case of those possessing a diploma in Civil Engineering Note Where junior who have completed their qualifying/eligibility service are being considered for promotion their seniors would uld also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying/eligibility service by more than half of of such qualifying/eligibility service or two years whichever is less and have successfully completed their probation period for promotion promoti to the next higher grade alongwith their juniors who have already completed such qualifying/ eligibility service ."
******* However, prior to notification of existing RRs dated 01.07.2004 Recruitment Rules to post of AE (C) were notified on 21.08.1979 and as per that RRs the method of recruitment is *50% by promotions, failing which by direct recruitment and failing both by tratransfer nsfer on deputation/transfer;
and 50% by direct recruitment, failing which by transfer on deputation transfer". Further, in case of promotion, Junior Engineer (Civil) with 3 years regular service in the grade in the case of those possessing a degree in Civil vil Engineering or equivalent qualification and 5 years regular service in the grade in which case of those possessing a Diploma in Civil Engineering. These RRs are applicable till 30.06.2004 i.e. before notification of existing RRs.
7. Vacancy Position Position: The Departmental Screening Committee was informed that as per Establishment Schedule of unified MCD (2022-23), (2022 there are 395 sanctioned posts of A.E. (Civil) and before unification of all three Corporations the total sanctioned strength of AE (C) was 396. As per existing notified RRs dated 01.07.2004, 75% post (ie. 297 Posts) come under Promotion Quota and 25% post (i.e. 98 Posts) come under Direct Recruitment Quota. The existing RRs to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) were notified on 01.07.2004 and as per previous notified RRs the quota for promotion as well as direct recruitment was 50 50-50%. Accordingly, the posts under DR quota were filled by direct recruitees as per that percentile; hence in the vacancy year 2004 2004-05 05 to 2015-16, 2015 the direct recruitee candidates were more than the prescribed quota for Direct Recruitment. Accordinlgy, the sanctioned strength in promotion quota have been reduced after adjusting the excess candidates appointed under Direct Recruitment Quota. The details for the same is as under: -
Page 32 of 47Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 Sl. Vacancy Year Total Promot DR Filled Vaca Promotion No. Post ion Qu Up nt/Ex Quota Quota ota (DRQ) cess after (DRQ adjusting ) excess DR candidates 1 2003-04 299 150 149 128 21 150 2 2004-05 299 150 149 136 13 150 (01.04.2004-30.06.2004) 30.06.2004) 3 2004-05 323 243 80 154 74 169 (01.07.2004-31.05.2005) 31.05.2005) and 2005-06 4 2006-07 323 243 80 163 83 160 5 2007-08 396 297 99 164 65 232 6 2008-09 396 297 99 141 42 255 7 2009-10 396 297 99 140 41 256 8 2010-11 396 297 99 139 40 257 9 2011-12 396 297 99 134 35 262 10 2012-13 396 297 99 129 30 267 11 2013-14 396 297 99 125 26 271 12 2014-15 396 297 99 118 19 278 13 2015-16 396 297 99 116 17 280 ******
9. Seniority List & Zone of Consideration: The Committee was informed that Feeder post for promotion to the post of AE (Civil) is JE(Civil). It is further submitted that with regard to issuance of seniority list after unification of all three Corporations, Engineering Deptt. (HQ) vide note dated 05.08.2022 (received in CED on 23.08.2022) has informed as und under:.
(1) Seniority list from serial No. 1 to 1041 was finalized by the MCD before its trifurcation and (11) Seniority list from serial No. 1042 to 1272 was finalized by North DMC including all the JEs of the erstwhile three Corporations after addressing all objections/representation of all the stake holders, we may request CED to consider the seniority lists mentioned below (seniority lists from seniority number 1 to 1272 including 1041 1041-A to 1041-L) L) as final seniority lists of Junior Engineer (Civil) for existing unified MCD as well."
27. Exhaustive xhaustive details have been given in the minutes of the DPC vis-a-vis,, the case of the applicants in terms of the year wise vacancy position/ educational qualification and eligibility position position, which shows that the applicants were very much in zone of consideration for regular promotion for respective panel year from 2016 2016-2017.
2017. It is not Page 33 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 in dispute that applicants were accorded regular promotion to the post of AE (civil) prospectively in terms of para 2 of the said promotional order.
r. The said promotional order is not subject matter of challenge in present OA. Furthermore, the applicant applicants' representations have been be decided on case to case basis by a detailed office order dated 20.3.2025 during the pendency of proceedin proceedings. Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicants, himself drew our attention to an order dated 27.03.2025 passed by thi this Tribunal in O.A. No.1096/2025,, which reads as under:
"Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he has filed present O.A. seeking direction to the respondent to treat the applicant as promoted to the post of the Assistant Engineer (Civil) on regular basis w.e.f. 27.08.2021 and reckon the period spent on look after chargeof the post for recasting the seniority lis listt which has already attained finality vide circular dated 19.02.2025 and grant all consequential benefits.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, submits that applicant has neither disclosed material facts in Para 7 of the O.A. nnor made any arguments in O.A. that applicant no. 1 in O.A./839/2025, whereby the same applicant is arrayed as applicant no. 1 seeking quashment of seniority list dated 19.02.2025 on identical grounds as respondent has not responded to provisional seniority as well as final seniority dated 19.02.2025.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submits that on preliminary contention, this petition deserves to be dismissed as applicant has suppressed material facts and Hon'ble Supreme Court in cas casee of the Auroville Foundation vs. Natasha Storey in Civil Appeal No. 13651/2024 decided on 17.03.2025 has held that it is the matter of trite law that suppression of material facts before a Court amounts to abuse of process of Court and shall be dealt with heavy hand and the O.A. deserves to be dismissed on the preliminary contention that applicant has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant, at this stage, prays for permission to withdraw the present O. O.A. A. to agitate the grounds challenging seniority list dated 19.02.2025 in O.A./839/2025.
5. In view of above, the present Original Application stands dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty."Page 34 of 47
Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025
28. There is no challenge to the order dated 06.10.2023 by way of any amendment to the OA. Going by the pleading on record record, the present OA needs to be decided on the touchstone of the relief(s) sought. What has been urged is that the applicants ought to have been accorded the benefit of ad ad-hoc services/look after er charge to arrive at a just and proper seniority list. It has been urged as one of the grounds in OA that employees have a fundamental right for consideration for promotion for which proper seniority list is the first requirement.
29. As already observe observed, since there is no challenge to office order dated 06.10.2023,, grant of consequential relief(s) may not arise in present case. The contentions on behalf of the applicant applicants would not help them since they have not sought any consequential relief(s) thereto. We can say that Inter se seniority refers to the relative seniority among individuals within the same category or group, determining their hierarchical order within that group. In order to determine Inter-se Int seniority, amongst st individual applicants versus private respondents we have to see whether the applicant(s) referring to their relative seniority among individuals fall within the same category or group to arrive at their hierarchical order withi withinn that group. The onus lies upon the applicant(s) applic to prove to the contrary contrary, which they have failed to discharge. The applicant(s) who were appointed in different years cannot relate themselves to same relative seniority among individuals within the same Page 35 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 category ategory or group to arrive at their hierarchical order within that group.
Illustratively, Khush Ram and Sunil Kumar who have not been accorded seniority and promotion altogether stand on different footing due to the police report and/or departmental procee proceedings and as such could not have been arrayed as applicant(s). We also take note of the fact that applicants plicants were appointed in 1997, 2000, 2001 2003, 2004 2004, 2005 and 2006 respectively and their ad-hoc hoc promotion order(s) have also been issued on different dates w.e.f 2013 till 22.04.2024 22.04.2024,, which is all the more reason that the applicants who were appointed in different years cannot relate themselves to same relative seniority among individuals within the same category or group to arrive at their hierarchica hierarchicall order within that group. In MA No. 1306 1306-1305/2025, the proposed ed intervenor(s) have relied on Office Order for ad ad-hoc hoc promotion(s) dated 23.7.2009, 20.04.2010 , 25.10.2011 , 01.01.2013 and 15.9.2014 2014 which invariably stipulates following terms and conditions:
conditions:-
"a). The promotion shall be purely on adhoc basis, as a matter of stop stop-gap arrangement and shall not entitle the officer to claim any benefit on account of the said promotion.
b). The promotion is on adhoc basis pending rregular egular appointment in accordance with the recruitment regulation and will not confer any privilege or right on the officer for regular appointment for determination of seniority.
c).
). The period of ad hoc service will not be counted towards eligibility peri period for regular appointment for determination of seniority.
d). The ad hoc appointment can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason and giving any prior notice/instruction/guidelines as issued by the government of India/Corporation .
f). In addition to above, the aforesaid officials will continue to Look After the work of Junior Engineer (Civil) in addition to their own duties as AE(C).
AE(C)."
Page 36 of 47Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025
30. The Rules are silent qua the treatment of ad ad-hoc hoc period. As per RR's Junior Engineer Engineers (Civil) with ith six years "regular service" in the grade in the case of those possessing degree in Civil Engineering, Engineering and eight years "regular service " in the grade in case of those possessing diploma in Civil Engineering are to be accorded the promotion to the post of AE(Civil).
31. The case of R.K Mobisana Singh v. Kh. Temba Singh And Others (007 INSC 1278) adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India decided on December 12, 2007, addresses critical issues related to promotions within the Public Works Department (PWD) of Manipur. The matter revolved around the determination of inter se seniority between two groups of Assistant Engineers: direct recruits and promotees. The appellant and private respondents, all Assistant Engineers in the PWD, challenged the manner in wh which their promotions were handled, particularly focusing on the seniority imparted through ad --hoc hoc promotions and subsequent regularization(s).
regulariza The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under ::-
31. The Court in paragraph 77 of the judgment noticed the decisions where promotees were held to be not entitled to seek regularisation of ad hoc services in certain situations. The Court summarized its finding in paragraph 79 in the following terms;
Summarising rising the position, we therefore hold that the ad hoc/stopgap service of the promotees cannot be treated as non est merely because PSC was not consulted in respect of continuance of the ad hoc/stopgap service beyond six months. Such service is capable of being regularised under Rule 23 of the J&K (CCA) Rules, 1956 and rectified with retrospective effect from the date of occurrence of a clear vacancy in the promotion quota, subject to eligibility, fitness and other relevant factors. There is no rule applicable. The rule has not broken down. Excess promotees occupying direct recruitment posts have to be pushed down and adjusted in later vacancies within their quota, after due regularisation. Such service outside the promotee quota cannot count for fo seniority. Service of the promotees which is regularised with retrospective effect from the date of vacancies within the quota counts for seniority. However, Page 37 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 any part of such ad hoc/stopgap or even regular service rendered while occupying the direct recruitment quota cannot be counted. Seniority of the promotees or transferees is to be fixed as per quota and from the date of commencement of probation/regular appointment as stated above. Seniority of direct recruits is from the date of substantive appointment. Seniority has to be worked out between direct recruits and promotees for each year. We decide Point 3 accordingly. Point 4 Direct recruits cannot claim appointment from date of vacancy in quota before their selection
32. In M.K. Shanmugam and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2000) 4 SCC 476], direct recruitment and ad hoc appointment was distinguished stating :
If the ad hoc selection is followed by regular selection, then the benefit of ad hoc service is not admissible ssible if ad hoc appointment is in violation of the rules. If the ad hoc appointment has been made as a stopgap arrangement and where there was a procedural irregularity in making appointments according to rules and that irregularity was subsequently rrectified, ectified, the principle to be applied in that case was stated once again. There is difficulty in the way of the appellants to fight out their case for seniority should be reckoned by reason of the length of the service whether ad hoc or otherwise inasmuch much as they had not been recruited regularly. As stated earlier, the appellants were regularly found fit for promotion only in the year 1977 and if that period is reckoned their cases could not be considered as found by the Tribunal. It was furthermore hermore observed;
It is only in those cases where initially they had been recruited even though they have been appointed ad hoc the recruitment was subject to the same process as it had been done in the case of regular appointment and that the same was not a stopgap arrangement. That is not the position in the present cases at all. Therefore, we are of the view that the conclusions reached by the Tribunal appear to us to be correct and call for no interference. However, we make it clear, as noticed ced earlier, that while amending the Rules of Recruitment in 1984 all those who are already in service will be borne in mind in adjusting the seniority amongst the promotees inter se and suitable adjustments could be made and so far as the direct recruits uits are concerned, their cases will go by their quota rule and the view taken by the Tribunal in this regard cannot be taken exception of.
33. Suraj Prakash Gupta (supra) has been distinguished by this Court in Swapan Kumar Pal and Others Vs. Samitabh Samitabhar ar Chakraborty and Others [(2001) 5 SCC 581] stating; The next case relied upon by Mr.Rao is the case of Suraj Prakash Gupta v. State of J&K. In the aforesaid case, on consideration of the relevant rules governing the service conditions of the Assist Assistant ant Engineers of the Jammu and Kashmir Government, the Court had observed that ad hoc or temporary service of a person, appointed by transfer as an Assistant Engineer or by promotion as an Assistant Executive Engineer can be regularized Page 38 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 through the Pu Public Service Commission and Departmental Promotion Committee from an anterior date in a clear vacancy in his quota, if he is eligible and found suitable for such transfer or promotion, as the case may be, and his seniority will count from that date. The aforesaid conclusion was drawn because of the provisions of Rule 23 and Rule 15 of the Jammu and Kashmir Rules but in the case in hand, there is no provision, which has been brought to our notice, which enables the appointing authority to regularis regularise a promotion from an anterior date, though the suitability test is held at a later date. In the absence of any such provision in the Rules in question, the ratio of the aforesaid decision, on interpretation of the relevant rules of the Jammu and Kashmir hmir Engineering Rules will have no application. (emphasis supplied)
34. To the similar effect is the decision of this Court in Md. Israil and Others Vs. State of W.B. and Others [2002) 2 SCC 306], noticing Suraj Prakash Gupta (supra) and ShanShanmugam mugam (Supra) wherein it was opined that those decisions were rendered having regard to the peculiar rules which were governing the service conditions of the employees;
35. We may furthermore notice that this Court in D.N. Agrawal and Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [(1990) 2 SCC 553] has categorically held that ad hoc promotion without following the Recruitment Rules would not lead to any right for computation of seniority.
36. In Santosh Kumar Vs. G.R. Chawla [(2003) 10 SCC 513], this Court opined :
It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in view of Rule 4, the appellants are required to be regularised first and thereafter, newly appointed direct recruits are required to be appointed/confirmed. This co contention ntention has no force.
This contention has to be negatived in view of the specific finding by the High Court that direct recruits were appointed either on 16- 16 9-1982/17--9-1982 and the services of the appellants were regularised only on 22 22-9- 1982.
37. Applying the principles of the aforementioned decisions to the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that although in terms of the office memorandum, no retrospective effect could be given to the order of regularisation passed in favour of the promo promotees, tees, as in absence of any seniority rules operating in the field, the State was required to evolve a policy. It for its own reason did not do so.
38. The office memorandum of 1959 was applicable in a case of this nature. In some of the cases, promot promotion ion might have been given without following the rules. When promotion is given only in the exigency of situation without following the Rules, the period cannot be counted towards seniority.
39. If they had been given regularisation with retrospectiv retrospective effect, the same by itself may not be a ground to apply the said order ipso facto for determining the inter se seniority. Seniority although is not a fundamental right but a civil right. Such a right of the direct recruits Page 39 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 could not have been taken away without affording an opportunity of hearing to them.
40. It was obligatory on the part of the official respondents to take into consideration that the retrospective regularization could be granted only when there exists such a rule. If rules w were ere not followed at the time of grant of promotion, question of grant of regularization with retrospective effect would not arise. Retrospective regularization whether in terms of the directions of the High Court or otherwise, thus, although could confe confer other service benefits to the officer concerned, but the same cannot be held to be of any assistance for reckoning seniority with retrospective effect.
41. It was for the DPC to recommend in regard thereto.
42. In some of the cases, evid evidently ently the procedure has not been followed. Therefore, the question of their acquiring seniority over the direct recruits does not arise.
43. The matter, therefore, requires a closure scrutiny by the State itself. As the function relating to deter determination mination of inter se seniority is that of the State, we do not approve constitution of a committee, as has been proposed by the learned Single Judge. It would, however, be open to the Statee to do so, if it so desires."
32. In WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S).49 OF 2022 C. YAMINI & OTHERS VERSUS THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMRAVATHI & ANR decided on 23.02.2023, while dealing with services rendered on Ad hoc basis in respect of judicial officer, the Hon'bl Hon'ble Apex ex Court held that the same cannot be claimed for purpose of seniority seniority:-
7. The question which has been raised in the instant petition at the instance of the present petitioners has been examined by this Court in Kum C. Yamini Vs. The State of Andhra Prade Pradesh & Anr.(Civil (Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019 decided on 14th August, 2019) wherein the three threeJudge Judge Bench of this Court, after examining their nature of appointment as a District & Sessions Judge Fast Track on adhoc hoc basis under the Rules, 2001 and later appoint appointed by Order dated 2nd July, 2013 on regular basis and becoming members of the Rules, 2007 held that the petitioners are not entitled to claim benefit of seniority from the date of their initial appointment as District & Sessions Judge Fast Track and other consequential reliefs prayed for. At the same time, limited benefit of service rendered as Fast Track Court Judges was granted to them only for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits. The relevant part is as under:Page 40 of 47
Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 "14......The claim of seni seniority ority will depend upon several factors, nature of appointment, rules as per which the appointments are made and when appointments are made, were such appointments to the cadre posts or not etc. When the appellants were not appointed to any regular posts in the A.P. Judicial Service, appellants cannot claim seniority based on their ad hoc appointments to preside over Fast Track Courts. We are of the view that the ratio decided in the said judgments relied on by the appellants would not render any assistance in support of their case."
"17. We have perused the aforesaid judgment and we are in agreement with the view taken by a two Judge Bench of this Court. Resultantly, while rejecting their claim for grant of seniority from the date of their initial nitial appointment as FastTrack Court District Judges and other reliefs, we direct that the appellants and all others who are similarly placed are to be given benefit of counting their service rendered as Fast Track Judges, for the purpose of pensionary an and other retiral benefits."
8. Since the services rendered by the petitioners as Fast Track Court Judges have not been recognized by this Court for the purpose of seniority except for pensionary and other retiral benefits, the plea raised by the petitioner petitioners to consider their service rendered as Fast Track Court Judges as a judicial service for the purpose of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution, in light of the judgment of this Court what being prayed for, is not legally sustainable. "
33. Another challen lenge to seniority list is on the ground that the respondents espondents illegally appointed 12 former employees of DUSIB on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) by absorption absorption, and seven of these former DUSIB employees, and status of the Technical Officer (TO) on their merger in the cadre of JE (Civil) and their seniority positions in the impugned Seniority eniority List dated 19.02.2025 have also been challenged.
34. The method of recruitment 'Transfer' has been re re-named as `Absorption' and Transfer on Deputation' as 'Deputatio 'Deputation' n' vide DOP&T's O.M.No.AB.14017/2/97 O.M.No.AB.14017/2/97-Estt. (RR) Dated 25.5.1998. The O.M. No. Page 41 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 20020/7/80-Estt.(D) Estt.(D) Dated 29.5.1986 and O.M. No. 20011/1/2000 20011/1/2000- Estt.(D) Dated 27th March, 2001] , stipulates:
stipulates:-
3.4 - Seniority of persons absorbed after being on deputation -
3.4.1 .4.1 In the case of a person who is initially taken on deputation and absorbed later (i.e. where the relevant recruitment rules provide for "Deputation/Absorption), his seniority in the grade in which he/she is absorbed will normally be counted from the da date te of absorption. If he/she has, however, been holding already (on the date of absorption) the same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his/her parent department, such regular service in the grade shall also be taken into account in fixing his seniori seniority, subject to the condition that he/she will be given seniority from -
- the date he/she has been holding the post on deputation, (or)
- the date from which he/she has been appointed on a regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in his parent dep department., artment., Whichever is earlier.
The instructions (No. 20011/1/2000 20011/1/2000-Estt. (D) Dated 27th March, 2001) have taken effect from the December 14, 1999.
3.4.2 The fixation of seniority of an absorbee in accordance with the above principle will not, however, affect any regular promotions to the next higher grade made prior to the date of such absorption. In other words, it will be operative only in filling up of vacancies in higher grade taking place after such absorption.
3.4.3 In the original O.M. (1959) there is a provision that, in cases, in which transfers(now absorption) are not strictly in public interest, the transferred(now absorbed) officers will be placed below all officers appointed regularly to the grade on the date of absorption. This provision has been reviewed and now stands deleted since no such situation where absorption is not in public interest, could be envisaged.
3.4.4 It is also clari clarified fied that for the purpose of determining the equivalent grade in the parent department mentioned in the Office Memorandum dated May 29, 1986, the criteria contained in this Department Office Memorandum No.14017/27/75- Estt.(D) Dated March 7, 1984 1984, which lays ys down the criteria for determining analogous posts, may be followed In terms of DoP&T's O.M. No.20011/1/2008-Estt.(D) Estt.(D) Dated 11th November 2010, 3.5 Seniority of persons who are transferred and absorbed directly without being on deputation.
Some cases has as been received in this department seeking clarification whether the (DOP&T) O.M.No.20020/7/80 O.M.No.20020/7/80-Estt.
Estt. (D) Dated 29.5.1986 and Page 42 of 47 Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 No.20011/1/2000-Estt.(D) Estt.(D) Dated 27th March, 2001 ] in the case of a person who is initially taken on deputation and absorbed later, would be applicable also for persons who are transferred and absorbed directly without being on deputation i.e. where the recruitment rules provide for recruitment through absorption. The matter has been considered and it has been decided that, in such cases ses also the provision as contained in the afore afore-said said O.Ms would be applicable i.e. the date he has been holding the post on deputation or the date from which he has been appointed on the regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in his parent departme department, nt, whichever is earlier.
35. The records would reveal that a circular came to be issued vide Office order dated 25.10.2016, which is re re-produced produced as under:-
under:
"SUBJECT:- Regarding Finalization of insertion of names in the Final Seniority List of Assistant. Engineer (Civil) Issued vide No. D.A-
D.A V/Engg./HQ/NDMC/2015/777 dated 10.03.2016 Consequent upon the Corporation Resolution No. 869 dated 11.01.2012 vide which approval for re re-organization organization of original Technical Laboratory cadre with Engineering Department was approved. Accordingly, the following three Technical Officers have been merged & re re-designated as Assistant Engineer (Civil). Accordingly, a Provisional Seniority list of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was issued vide Circular No. D.A D.A- V/Engg./HQ/NDMC/2016 V/Engg./HQ/NDMC/2016/401 /401 dated 03.08.2016 for inviting objections, if any within 15 days of the date of issue, failing which, the same shall be finalized as per rule.
After Considering all the objections against the abovementioned provisional seniority list of AE(Civil) circ circulated ulated on 03.08.2016, the same is hereby finalized and circulated herewith for infor information mation of all concerned as under:
Srty Name/Fat Categ D.O.B Mode Qualification Date of Presen
No. her's ory of regular t
Name appoint Apptt. In posting
ment the grade
558 Rajesh Gene 01.09.19 Promot BE (Civil) 12.04.06 NDMC
9A Kumar ral 68 ion
Sharma
S/o Devi
Saran
Sharma
589 Sanjeev Gene 18.07.19 Direct BE (Civil), ME 01.09.06 NDMC
B Kumar S/o ral 74 (Structural)
Laxman
Pd.,
Sharma
589 Rakesh SC 20.10.19 Direct B.Tech (Civil), 27.02.06 EDMC
C Kumar 73 Diploma in
Arunesh RTMPDBACA
S/o & M.Tech
Chander (Environment
Mohan Science and
Page 43 of 47
Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025
with O.A. No.1316/2025
Arunesh Engineering)
36. The said order based on Corporation Resolution dated 11.1.2012 11.1.2012, and the consequent fixation of seniority on 10.03.2016 and 03.8.2016 are not subject matter of challenge in present OA . Furthe Furthermore rmore, a circular dated 21.12.2018 has also been issued issued, the impact whereof cannot be ignored.. The same reads as under under:-
"SUBJECT: Placement in the Final Seniority List of of Junior Engi Engineer (Civil) who have been absorbed in all three Corporations vide resolution No. 113 dated 21.11.2012 placed at the bottom of the panel year 2000 2000-2001.
2001.
In continuation of previous final seniority list of the Junior Engineer (Civil) circulated vide No.. HC HC-II/Engg./HQ/NDMC/2007/6520 II/Engg./HQ/NDMC/2007/6520 dated 09.03.2007 upto seniority No. 1041, a provisional seniority list of Junior Engineers (Civil) who have been absorbed in all three Corporations vide resolution No. 113 dated 21.11.2012 placed at the bottom of the panel yyear 2000-2001 2001 at Seniority No. 1041 was circulated for inviting objections/representations, if any, from the effected persons vide Circular No. DA DA-I/Engg./HQ/NDMC/2017/295 I/Engg./HQ/NDMC/2017/295 dated 21.07.2017.
After considering all the objections/representation received in response to the aforesaid circular, the final placement of Junior Engineers (Civil) absorbed in the three corporation are placed at the bottom of seniority list dated 09.03.2007 at Seniority No. 1041 1041-A to 1041-LL and now has been finalized and the same is hereby circulated for the information to all concerned.
This issues with the prior approval of Competent Authority."
37. We may also refer to the fact that it is not disputed that the officials on deputation in MCD from DUSIB were absorbed permanently in MCD vide SDMC Resolution No.113 dated 21.11.2012 issued vide office order No. HC-I/Engg.
I/Engg. (HQ)/2012/479 dated 11.12.2012 11.12.2012, and their seniority to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) was already settled vide circular No. DA-I/Engg./HQ/NDMC/2018/914 I/Engg./HQ/NDMC/2018/914 dated 21.12.2018 (issued after settling the objections/representations invited vide Circular No. DA DA-
Page 44 of 47Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 I/Engg./HQ/NDMC/2017/295 dated 21.07.2017).That the merger of Technical Officers with the cad cadre of JE (Civil) was made as per the Resolution of the Corporation (Resolution NO. 869 dated 11.01.2012) and the seniority of these Technical Officers after merger was already settled in 2016 vide Circular No. DA DA-IV/Engg(HQ)/NDMC/2016/661 IV/Engg(HQ)/NDMC/2016/661 dated 25.10.2016 (wherein the date of appointment in the grade was already mentioned) (ANNEXURE (ANNEXURE-R-7),
7), hence it need not to be reopened.
38. The said order was based on Corporation Resolution dated 11.1.2012 consequent fixation of seniority on 10.03.2016 and also the seniority ority already fixed on 03.8.2016 and 21.11.2012,11.12.2012 and 21.12.2018 is not a subject matter of challenge in present OA OAs.
39. On 03.04.2025,, this Tribunal passed the following order in O.A. No.1316/2025:-
This matter has been listed under the diary number. The Registry has raised an objection that the Original Application is premature as the representation of the applicant is pending consideration before the respondents and six months period as has been man mandated dated from the date of submission of representation is not elapsed.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the respondents have proceeded with the DPC, therefore, they could not wait for the disposal of the representation as the decision of th thee DPC if implemented, would be detrimental to the interest of the applicants.
3. In view of what has been explained hereinabove, the objection raised is waived off. Registry is directed to assign a regular OA Number to the Original Application.
4. By virtue tue of the instant Original Application, the applicants seek direction to the respondents to conduct the DPC in terms of the DOP&T OM dated 25.03.1996.Page 45 of 47
Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025
5. Issue notice.
6. Sh. M K Bhardwaj and Ms. Anupama Bansal, learned counsels appearing on advance service, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. They seek and are granted four weeks' time to file reply. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants presses for Interim Relief set forth in para 9, which is reproduced herein herein-below:-
"i. To direct the respondents to consider the applicants for promotion provisionally subject to the outcome of the Original Applicati Application.
Or in the alternative;
ii. Stay the further ad ad-hoc hoc promotions/LAC/Current duty charge to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) pending disposal of the O.A."
8. The Original Application also confirms that on the same issue, the O.A. No. 839/2025 is pending ending consideration before the Tribunal and is coming up for consideration on 08.04.2025. Let the present OA also be listed on the same date, i.e.08.04.2025 before the same Bench.
Bench."
40. CONCLUSION 40.1. In view of the aforesaid detailed analysis, we dismiss O.A. No. 839/2025 being devoid of merit.
40.2. Keeping in view the fact that the representation representations of the applicants applicant are pending consideration in O.A. No.1316/2025, we grant liberty to the applicants inn OA No. 1316/2025 to make fresh detailed and comprehensive representation representations to the competent authority amongst the respondents within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. On receipt of such representation representations from the applicants, applicant the respondents shall pass reasoned and speaking orders thereon within a period of 45 days therefrom therefrom.
Page 46 of 47Item No. 60 & 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.839/2025 with O.A. No.1316/2025 40.3. Additionally, the employees who were seeking impleadment in O.A. No. 1316/2025 are also granted liberty to file fresh representations to the Competent Authority amongst the respondents respondents.. This disposes of the O.A. No.1316/2025.
40.4. All pending M.A.s, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sb/
Page 47 of 47