Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
H K Dhanwani vs Revenue on 9 April, 2026
1
Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2651/2024
Reserved on : 17.03.2026
Pronounced on: 09.04.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
1. H.K. Dhanwani, Inspector,
S/o Sh. Mangha Ram Dhanwani, Aged 55 years
Email: [email protected]; # 9460512509
R/o 307, Gold Taara, Vivekanand Nagar,
V.T.C. Engineering College Kota,
P.O.: Engineering College Kota,
Sub District: Ladpura, Distt.: Kota, Rajasthan - 324010
Working in the % District Opium Officer,
Ch. III, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan - 312001.
2. R. K. Mishra, Inspector,
S/o Sh. Satya Narayan Mishra, Aged 51 years
Email: [email protected]; # 9868126604
R/o Flat No. 905, Shipra Apartment,
Near Vaishali Metro Station, Sector-4,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh - 201010
Working in the % the Narcotics Commissioner,
Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh - 474006
3. Onkar Prasad, Inspector,
S/o Late Sh. Harihar Prasad, Aged 49 years
Email: [email protected]; # 8982935778
R/o Qtr. No. 15, Customs & Narcotics Colony,
Near Power House, Mahavir Nagar-III,
Kota, Rajasthan - 324005
Working in the % the Narcotics Commissioner,
Kota, Rajasthan - 324005
4. Anuj Kumar, Inspector, Aged 47 years
Email: [email protected]; # 7296895050
C/o Lal Bahadur Shastri, Flat No. 348,
Riddhi Siddhi Residency, Dakaniya Road,
Vigyan Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan - 324005
Working in the % the Superintendent (P&I Cell),
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan - 312605
5. Anup Gairola, Inspector,
S/o Late Sh. L.P. Gairola, Aged 48 years
Email: [email protected]; # 9888361406
ANKIT
ANKITSAKLANI
SAKL 2026.04.1
0
ANI 11:13:05
+05'30'
2
Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024
Court No. IV
R/o Qtr. No. 38, Type-III, Narcotics Colony,
19, The Mall Road, Adipura Jagir, Gwalior - 474006
Working in the % the Narcotics Commissioner,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh - 226006
6. R. K. Dey, Inspector,
S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Dey, Aged 46 years
Email: [email protected]; # 7905367002
R/o 16/21, Mishra Colony, D.P. Shuklaganj,
Unnao, Uttar Pradesh - 209861
Working in the % the Dy. Narcotics Commissioner,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh - 226006
7. Shashi Kant Singh, Inspector,
S/o Shri Vidhya Singh, Aged 48 years
Email: [email protected]; # 9479949419
Narcotics House, Kirkheda,
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan - 312001
Working in the % District Opium Officer,
Jaora-1, Jaora, Madhya Pradesh - 457226
8. Gulam Sarwar Khan, Inspector,
S/o Shri Anis Khan, Aged 46 years
Email: [email protected]; # 9414661789
R/o NT-III/24, Narcotics Excise Colony,
Mahaveer Nagar-3, Kota, Rajasthan - 324005
Working in the % Dy. Narcotics Commissioner,
Kota, Rajasthan - 324005
9. Vivek Srivastava, Inspector,
S/o Shri Devi Shankar Srivastava, Aged 48 years
Email: [email protected]; # 9414241612
R/o 2-D-31, Mahavir Nagar Extension, Kota - 324009
Presently working in % The Dy. Narcotics Commissioner,
Mahaveer Nagar-I, Jhalawar Road,
Kota (Rajasthan) - 324005
10. Pankaj Saxena, Inspector,
S/o Shri R. K. Saxena, Aged 50 years
Email: [email protected]; # 6396538823
R/o: 284111, Akanksha Parisar, Pocket-A, Jankipuram
Lucknow - 226021 (Uttar Pradesh)
Presently working in % The District Opium Officer,
Barabanki (U.P.) - 225001
11. Rishi Nigam, Inspector,
S/o Lal Ji Nigam, Aged 47 years
Email: [email protected]; # 9415542589
R/o: 1061/129A, Bharat Park, Gandhi Nagar,
R.K. Nagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh - 208012
ANKIT
ANKITSAKLANI
SAKL 2026.04.1
0
ANI 11:13:05
+05'30'
3
Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024
Court No. IV
Presently working in % The District Opium Officer,
Bareilly (U.P.) - 243001
...Applicants
(By Advocates: Mr M K Bhardwaj with Mr. D P Sharma)
Versus
Union of India through,
1. The Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001
Email: [email protected]
2. The Chairman,
Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs,
406, 4th Floor, e-Wing, Hudco Vishala Building,
Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi - 110066
Email: [email protected]
3. The Narcotics Commissioner of India,
Central Bureau of Narcotics,
19, The Mall Road, Morar,
Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh - 474006
Email: [email protected]
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Mr. Kripa Shankar Prasad,
Mr. Yashpal Rangi with Mr. Md. Sajid in MA No. 3193/2025)
ANKIT
ANKITSAKLANI
SAKL 2026.04.1
0
ANI 11:13:05
+05'30'
4
Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
By way of the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) Allow this Original Application.
(ii) Declare the act of respondents in reverting to post-based roster in place of vacancy-based roster, already in vogue, for unsettling Seniority List as on 01.01.2015 of the applicants from retrospective period from 2001 to 2018 in contravention to DOP&T OM dated 19.01.2007 as illegal, biased, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of relevant provisions & non est in the eyes of law.
(iii) Set aside/quash impugned Review DPC held on 25.04.2023 vide Notice F. No. II (34)/1/Estt/SL-
Insp/2020-937 and impugned Seniority List of Inspector as on 01.04.2013, issued therewith, and subsequent orders issued consequently.
(iv) Pass an order directing respondents to keep pre- revised Seniority List of Inspector as on 01.01.2015 intact and promote the applicants to the post of Superintendent considering the same.
(v) Pass any other order/direction as may be deemed just & proper in the light of facts & circumstances of the case as submitted herein above."
2. The applicants had filed M.A. No. 3407 of 2024 seeking interim relief. It was their case that the respondents had issued the impugned seniority list dated 01.04.2013 (Annexure A-1) pursuant to the revised DPC held on 25.04.2023, which, according to them, was in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar & Anr., (1999) 2 SCC 330. On that basis, the applicants sought a direction restraining the ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 5 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV respondents from proceeding further with promotions to the post of Superintendent from the Inspector cadre on the strength of the said seniority list. It was further their case that the respondents were continuing the process by convening a review DPC for promotion to the post of Superintendent and had also issued a draft seniority list of Inspectors as on 01.01.2024.
2.1 By an interim order dated 17.09.2024, the Bench of this Tribunal, as an ad-interim measure, clarified that any promotion made from the post of Inspector to the post of Superintendent on the basis of the revised impugned seniority list of Inspectors as on 01.04.2013 (Annexure A-1) shall remain subject to the outcome of the present O.A. 2.2 The principal issue that arises for consideration in the present matter is whether the respondents are required to adopt a post-based roster or a vacancy-based roster for the purpose of effecting promotions to the post of Superintendent.
2.3 It was contended on behalf of the applicants that the application of a post-based roster is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Federation of Central Excise vs. Union of India, the relevant paragraph of which reads as under:
ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 6 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV "A like situation arose in State of Punjab & Others vs. Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar & another [1998 (6) SCALE 642]. That was again a case of recruitment by promotion to the posts of Professors from the category of Additional Professors and also by way of direct recruitment, in the ratio of 3:1. The Additional Professors, who represented the promotee feeder group having a quota of 3 vacancies in the cadre of Professors contended that whenever a Professor retired, one has to find out whether he was a promotee or a direct recruit. If the vacancy was created by retirement of a promotee, then the said vacancy in the promotional cadre had to filled only by a promotee from the lower cadre and not by way of direct recruitment. Reliance for the said contention was placed by the promotees on Sabharwal's case which case. This Court distinguished Sabharwal's Case as relating to a scheme of reservation and observed that in a system of quota between promotees and direct recruits, once the posts in the higher cadre were filled, thereafter if vacancies arose (say) by retirements, then it was not permissible to treat the vacancy as a vacancy earmarked for the category to which the retiree belonged before being promoted or recruited. Once the recruitment was made from two channels, the birth marks got erased as stated in State of J & K vs. Trilokhi Nath Khosa [1974 (1) SCR 771118 Dr. Bhatnagar's case [1998 (6) Scale 642] Majmudar, J. observed (at p.652) as follows:
"The quota of percentage of departmental promotees and direct recruits has to be worked out on the basis of the roster points taking into consideration vacancies that fall due at a given point of time. As stated earlier, as the roster for 3 promotees and one direct recruit moves forward, there is no question of filling up the vacancy created by the retirement of a direct recruit by a direct recruit or the vacancy created by a promotee by a promotee. Irrespective of the identity of the person retiring, the post is to be filled by the onward motion of 3 promotees and one direct recruit."
2.4 Learned counsel further relied on the decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3105/2021 in the matter of Hari Shanker Vs. Union of India, relevant paras of which are as under:-
"9. The Recruitment Rules for the post of AE (Civil) as promulgated on 03.07.1990 vide Council Resolution No.44 prescribed method of recruitment. This method of recruitment mandates 75% to be recruited by promotion ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 7 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV *from JE (Civil) [50% diploma holders and 25% graduate, failing which by deputation and failing both by direct recruitment], and 25% by direct recruitment. These Recruitment Rules have not been changed or modified in any way till now. However, the respondents have reiterated their stand time and again that they are following the method of recruitment prescribed vide OM dated 19.01.2007, issued by Department of Personnel and Training. This method of recruitment is based on Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in the matter of R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 745. The Annexure to this OM also elaborates, by illustration as to how the vacancies are to be calculated on a year-to-year basis for recruitment. The same is extracted below :-
"Illustration Suppose sanctioned strength of a grade is 1000 and the Recruitment Rules for the grade provide that 50% of the vacancies shall be filled by direct recruitment on All India basis by open competition and 50% by promotion. Reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs in different recruitment in this case will be 15%, 7.5% and 27% respectively and in promotion reservation will be 15% for SC and 7.5% for ST.
Suppose all the 1000 posts were filled in the year 2000 of which 500 i.e. 50% of the posts were filled by direct recruitment and 500 i.e. 50% of the posts were filled by promotion. The number of reserved posts in direct recruitment quota and promotion quota in that grade in the year 2000 would be as given below:
Direct Recruitment: SCs-75, STs-37, OBCs-135 Promotion SCS-75, STS-37 Suppose in the year 2001, a total of 200 vacancies arose in the grade, of which 50 posts were vacated by candidates from the direct recruitment quota and 150 by candidates from the promotion quota. As a result of this, the number of incumbents in the direct recruitment quota became 450 and in the promotion quota
350. Since Recruitment Rules provide for filling of 50% of the vacancies by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion, 100 vacancies in the year 2001 will be filled by direct recruitment and 100 by promotion. Thus in that year, the cadre strength for direct recruitment quota would become 550 and for promotion quota it would become 450. The number of reserved posts in the direct recruitment quota and promotion quota in that year will be as follows:
ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 8 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV Direct Recruitment: SCs-82, STs-41, OBCs-148 Promotion SCs-67, STs-33"
According to above methodology, the total vacancies, both through direct recruitment and through promotion, shall be taken as the total every year and will be filled up as per the percentage prescribed. This would not take into account whether the number of vacancies during that year are more in one category and less in the other, but it would strictly follow the percentage prescribed for recruitment. It has also been clarified in the illustration given that although this may result in year-on-year changes in the numbers in different categories, the recruitments will have to follow these guidelines. It has been confirmed by the respondents that although the detailed methodology is not prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, the DOPT OM dated 19.01.2007, is being followed for working out and filling up the vacancies. If that is the case, then out of the 111 sanctioned posts. total of 87 vacancies are available in 2022. The percentage should, therefore, be worked out on 87 vacaricies in terms of Recruitment Rules, i.e., 75% to be filled by promotion and 25% to be filled by direct recruitment. These calculations are to be worked out by the Department and we will not forther indulge in these calculation exercises. We have, however, taken note of the Recruitment Rules, which do not have any such methodology to be adopted. The detailed methodology, as is being adopted by the respondents in terms of the OM dated 19.01.2007, also does not establish their case of working out 43 vacancies to be filled up through direct recruitment vide Notification dated 03.01.2022. On record is Annexure R-2 of the counter filed by Respondent No. 1. This provides details at Page No. 20 of the total sanctioned posts of AE (Civil) as 111, total sanctioned post of direct recruitment as 28 and total vacant post for direct recruitment as 28, however, in the next column, the total number of vacancies requisitioned against direct recruitment is shown as 43. The respondents have not been able to clearly establish as to how this figure of 43 has been arrived at whereas total posts for direct recruitment are indicated as 28. Even in terms of Recruitment Rules, going by the total sanctioned strength of 111, the 75% posts through promotion would work out to 83 posts for promotion and 28 for direct recruitment. Further, taking into account, the present availability of AEs which is 9 in category of directly recruited and 15 in category of promoted, these vacancies could work out yet differently. Respondents have not been able to provide any logical explanation for arriving at a figure of 43.
10. We have considered both the Recruitment Rules and the OM of the DoPT and found that the contention of the respondents for following the DoPT OM dated 19.01.2007 as the methodology for filling up the ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 9 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV vacancies in any year is acceptable and should be followed. With this, there does not seem to be any scope of further working out the roster on year-on-year basis, when the recruitments have not taken place for last many years. When the recruitments are taking place after many years, the total number of vacancies would have to be taken into account and the recruitments in both categories direct and through promotion should be made in terms of ratio given in RRs. The respondents are directed to strictly follow the Recruitment Rules and methodology as enunciated in the DoPT OM dated 19.01.2007 and re-work the vacancies to be filled through the direct recruitment and by promotion.
11. In view of aforementioned, the OAs are allowed and OM dated 03.12.2021 and the vacancy notice dated 03.01.2022, are set aside to the extent the same shows 43 number of vacancies of AE (Civil) in the NDMC to be filled by direct recruitment. It is clarified that we are not staying the operation of OM dated 03.12.2021 and Vacancy Notice/Advertisement No. 03/22 dated 03.01.2022 excepting for the post of AE (Civil) for NDMC. The respondents are also directed to re-work the number of vacancies of AE (Civil) NDMC to be filled through direct recruitment and also by promotion within a period of 3 months in terms of RRs and the methodology prescribed vide OM dated 19.01.2007 and will initiate the process of direct recruitment and also promotion within 6 months from the date of issue of this order."
2.5 The learned counsel additionally argued that the respondents have disrupted the established situation through their notice dated 25.04.2023. He referenced, the decision set forth in H S Vankani and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. 2010 4 SCC 301, relevant paras of which read as under:-
"38. Seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to play in one's service career. Future promotion of a government servant depends either on strict seniority or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority, etc. Seniority once settled is decisive in the upward march in one's chosen work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work. It instils confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues which is a paramount factor for good and sound administration. If the settled seniority at the ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 10 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV instance of one's junior in service is unsettled, it may generate bitterness, resentment, hostility among the government servants and the enthusiasm to do quality work might be lost. Such a situation may drive the parties to approach the administration for resolution of that acrimonious and poignant situation, which may consume a lot of time and energy. The decision either way may drive the parties to litigative wilderness to the advantage of legal professionals both private and government, driving the parties to acute penury. It is well known that the salary they earn may not match the litigation expenses and professional fees and may at times drive the parties to other sources of money- making, including corruption. Public money is also being spent by the Government to defend their otherwise untenable stand. Further, it also consumes a lot of judicial time from the lowest court to the highest resulting in constant bitterness among the parties at the cost of sound administration affecting public interest.
39. Courts are repeating the ratio that the seniority once settled, shall not be unsettled but the men in power often violate that ratio for extraneous reasons, which, at times calls for departmental action. Legal principles have been reiterated by this Court in Union of India v. S.K. GoeP, T.R. Kapoor v. State of Haryana10 and Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana11. In view of the settled law the decisions cited by the appellants in G.P. Doval case. Prabhakar case, G. Deendayalan and R.S. Ajara are not applicable to the facts of the case."
2.6 The impugned order, i.e., the notice under challenge, is stated to have been based on an interim order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Allahabad in Ashish Bhatnagar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. on 10.01.2020, wherein the following was observed:
"8. On 27.9.2019, the counsel for the respondents was directed to seek instructions from the department on the point of interim relief within 15 days and the case was adjourned to another date. Thereafter, the case was taken up on 6.1.2020, however, on that date also learned counsel for respondents sought time for seeking instructions and he was granted two days further time for the same and the case was listed on 09.01.2020. However on 09.01.2020 also the learned counsel for the respondents was unable to seek instructions from the department and the OA was reserved for order on Interim relief.
ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 11 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV
9. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the applicants herein deserve interim relief. Accordingly we hereby direct the respondents not to conduct any DPC for the post of Superintendent without holding the Review DPC or the cadre of Inspectors."
2.7. Furthermore, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the respondents, in clear violation of the DOP&T O.M. dated 19.01.2007, arbitrarily reverted from a vacancy-based roster to a post-based roster and, going beyond the limited scope of the interim order dated 10.01.2020, conducted impugned Review DPCs for the period 2001-2018, thereby unsettling the long-settled seniority position as on 01.01.2015 and issuing a revised seniority list dated 01.04.2013.
2.8. Learned counsel contended that through this process, juniors were granted retrospective notional seniority for earlier years, placed above the applicants in the gradation list, and even promoted to the post of Superintendent ahead of them, resulting in serious civil consequences and stagnation of the applicants' career prospects.
2.9. Learned counsel further contended that such action is illegal, arbitrary, biased and discriminatory, being contrary to applicable service rules, settled principles of seniority, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation, besides violating principles of natural justice. ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 12 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV 2.10. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the respondents cannot take advantage of their own lapses in not amending the Recruitment Rules in time, nor override binding executive instructions having force under Article 73.
2.11. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel argued that despite detailed representations and even approaching the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no effective relief was granted, thereby compelling the applicants to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal seeking quashing of the impugned seniority list, Review DPC and consequential promotions, along with restoration of their rightful seniority and promotion to the post of Superintendent.
3. The official respondents as well as the proposed respondents in MA(s) opposed the Original Application and resisted the grant of relief.
3.1 Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for official respondents, submitted that the post of Inspector in the Narcotics Department has always been governed by statutory Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, initially prescribing a 1:1:1 ratio for Direct Recruitment, promotion from UDC/Steno, and promotion from Sub-Inspectors, which was later ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 13 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV amended in 2010 to 7:5:9. It is emphasized that these Rules were post-based in nature; however, the department erroneously followed a vacancy-based roster from 2001-02 to 2015-16, leading to serious imbalance in cadre strength, particularly with excess representation of UDC/Steno and shortage of Sub-Inspectors. 3.2 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Review DPCs for the cadre of Inspectors for the period 2001-2018 were conducted strictly in compliance with the interim order of Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal dated 10.01.2020 and subsequent Ministry clarifications, in accordance with the Recruitment Rules of 2001 as amended in 2010, which govern until the DoPT OM dated 19.01.2007 was incorporated in the RRs of 2018. The revisions in seniority and consequent promotions were necessitated by changes in vacancy positions and implementation of the post-based roster; they do not confer any undue benefit, and were lawfully carried out.
3.3 Mr. Kripa Shankar Prasad, learned counsel submitted that MA No. 2292/2025 is filed seeking impleadment of the applicants therein as party respondents in OA No. 2651/2024, as the said OA challenges the department's review DPC and revised ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 14 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV Inspector seniority list dated 25.04.2023, which may adversely affect the rights and interests of the applicants in the M.A. It is submitted that the applicants are Inspectors promoted from Sub-Inspector cadre, and any decision favoring the UDC/Steno cadre without considering Sub-Inspector seniority will cause irreparable prejudice. The Recruitment Rules (RR) of 2001 prescribed a promotion ratio of 1:1:1 (Direct:UDC/Steno:Sub-Inspector), later amended in 2010 to 7:5:9, and mandates post-based roster for promotions. The department initially violated this by following vacancy-based roster until 2016-17, promoting junior UDC/Steno cadre over senior Sub-Inspectors, which was later rectified through review DPCs in compliance with CAT Allahabad directions (OA No. 330/1013/2019, Ashish Bhatnagar case) and Board clarifications that RRs are statutory and cannot be overridden by executive orders. Comparative charts submitted show that the applicants are senior in terms of joining date, post, and pay scale, while junior UDC/Steno cadre received multiple promotions quickly, causing prior injustice to Sub-Inspectors. It is also submitted that applicants in OA concealed ongoing proceedings in other CAT benches (Allahabad, Jaipur, New Delhi), and granting relief in this OA would create ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 15 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV judicial incongruity. Therefore, the applicants pray that MA No. 2292/2025 be allowed and they be impleaded as respondents to safeguard their rights, seniority, and interest.
3.4 Mr. Yashpal Rangi, learned counsel submitted that MA No. 3193/2025 is filed seeking impleadment of the applicants therein as respondents in OA No. 2651/2024, as they are direct-recruit Inspectors whose seniority and future promotions to Superintendent may be affected by the outcome of the OA, which primarily concerns the pre-revised versus revised seniority list of Inspectors and the applicability of post-based versus vacancy-based roster for promotions. It is submitted that the applicants joined as Inspectors in 2015 through the Combined Graduation Level Examination (recruitment year 2012-
13) and their seniority was adjusted in the final seniority list published on 19.12.2024, following objections and in line with DoPT guidelines. The MA highlights that granting further interim relief to the original applicants could prejudice or delay the promotion prospects of the present applicants, and since the matter directly impacts their rights, they seek intervention/impleadment in the OA to safeguard their interests.
ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 16 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV 3.5 It is has been urged on behalf of respondents that upon detection of this imbalance in 2016, the department rightly shifted to a post-based roster system and conducted DPCs accordingly, restricting promotions to the cadre that was underrepresented, i.e., Sub- Inspectors. This corrective action was challenged by UDC/Steno employees but was upheld by the Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in OA No. 1183/2016, holding the action to be in consonance with the amended Recruitment Rules and earlier judicial directions aimed at balancing promotional avenues.
3.6 The respondents also submit that the subsequent Recruitment Rules, 2018, which removed the promotional quota for UDC/Steno, were again challenged before the Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, but the challenge was rejected on the ground that rule- making under Article 309 is a legislative function and cannot be interfered with by courts or Tribunal. 3.7 It is further stated that, pursuant to interim directions of the CAT, Allahabad Bench in OA No. 1013/2019 and clarification issued by the Ministry in consultation with DoPT and the Department of Legal Affairs, the department conducted Review DPCs from the date of notification of the original Recruitment Rules i.e. ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 17 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV 10.10.2001 onwards. These review DPCs, held in 2023, corrected the earlier vacancy-based promotions by applying the post-based roster, which resulted in revision of seniority lists and consequential promotions to the grade of Superintendent.
3.8 The respondents emphasize that the revised seniority lists, including the final seniority list as on 01.01.2024, have been prepared strictly in accordance with applicable Recruitment Rules, DoPT OMs, and judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to inter se seniority. It is also highlighted through comparative data that earlier, Sub-Inspectors were getting promotion after 24-28 years while UDC/Steno were promoted within 7-10 years, and the review DPCs have rationalized this disparity. Therefore, it is submitted that the respondents have merely implemented the valid statutory Recruitment Rules and judicial directions to correct past irregularities, and the contention of the applicants that the seniority list has been illegally unsettled is baseless and factually incorrect. Accordingly, the OA is stated to be devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed with costs. 3.9 It was contended on their behalf, with reference to page 9 of the counter reply, that the action taken by the respondents is in consonance with the order dated ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 18 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV 10.01.2020 passed by the CAT, Allahabad, wherein it was directed that no DPC for promotion to the post of Superintendent be conducted without first holding a Review DPC for the Inspector cadre.
3.10 It was further submitted that the Board, vide letter dated 14.01.2022, clarified that the Recruitment Rules (RRs), being statutory in nature, have an overriding effect over executive instructions or guidelines issued by the Government. It was stated that, upon consultation with the DoPT and the Department of Legal Affairs, it was clarified that the DoPT O.M. dated 19.01.2007 would become applicable only upon notification of the new Recruitment Rules, 2018 incorporating the said provisions. Till such time, the provisions of the Recruitment Rules, 2001, as amended in 2010, would continue to govern the field.
3.11 It was further stated that, in compliance with the aforesaid directions, Review DPCs for the period 2001-02 (from 10.10.2001) to 2012-13 were conducted on 25.04.2023. This exercise was necessitated on account of changes in vacancy positions arising from the implementation of a post-based roster with effect from 10.10.2001, which also coincided with the notification of Recruitment Rules for the post of Inspector. Thereafter, ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 19 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV Review DPCs for the period 2013-14 to 2017-18 were conducted on 09.10.2023 following the same methodology.
3.12 It was also submitted that, consequent thereto, a revised seniority list of Inspectors as on 01.04.2013 was issued. As a result of the said Review DPCs, the number of vacancies available to Inspectors promoted from UDC/Steno stood reduced, leading to a change in inter se seniority, whereby Inspectors promoted from the Sub- Inspector cadre ranked higher than those promoted from UDC/Steno. It was further stated that, thereafter, DPCs for promotion to the grade of Superintendent were conducted.
3.13 Concluding the arguments, learned counsel submitted that no junior has been illegally promoted over the applicants and that any perceived disadvantage arises from proper implementation of the applicable rules;thus the respondents have acted fairly, uniformly, and within law, and the OA deserves to be dismissed.
4. In rejoinder, the applicants refuted the contentions of the respondents and reiterated the averments made in the Original Application. It was contended that the respondents have misinterpreted the interim order dated ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 20 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV 10.01.2020 passed by the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal, as no direction was issued therein to conduct Review DPCs retrospectively from the year 2001 onwards. According to the applicants, the said directions were intended to operate prospectively and not to disturb the settled seniority.
4.1 The learned counsel further contended that the action of the respondents in conducting Review DPCs for the period 2001-2018 and issuing the impugned seniority list dated 01.04.2013 has illegally disturbed the settled seniority position as reflected in the earlier seniority list dated 01.01.2015, which, according to them, could not have been reopened.
4.2 It was also contended that the reliance placed by the respondents on the Recruitment Rules is misplaced, inasmuch as the DoPT O.M. dated 19.01.2007/2009, being issued by the nodal authority, ought to have been implemented from the date of its issuance, and the failure to incorporate the same in the amended Recruitment Rules cannot defeat its applicability. 4.3 The applicants further submitted that the respondents have wrongly applied a post-based roster, whereas, in practice, a vacancy/percentage-based roster ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 21 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV had been followed, and the impugned exercise has led to distortion in the cadre structure and inter se seniority. 4.4 It was also urged that the impugned actions have resulted in juniors being placed above the applicants and being promoted ahead of them by grant of notional seniority, which is contrary to the applicable rules and settled principles of service jurisprudence.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record. We have also gone through the records made available to us as well as respective written submissions filed by the counsels.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1 We have perused the original records produced before us, and it is revealed therefrom that, for the purpose of promotion from the post of Sub-Inspector to the grade of Inspector, a DPC was held on 22.05.2015.
The DPC note, inter alia, records under Clause 3 and specifically highlights in Clause 3.3 as under:
"3. As per the Central Bureau of Narcotics (Group "C" Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002, as amended, issued vide Notification dated 10th October, 2001 and amended by GSR 449 (E), dated 7th July, 2004 and as further amended (Recruitment Amendment Rules 2010) vide GSR 56 (E) dated 02.02.2010, the promotion from the grade of Sub Inspector to the post of Inspector shall be considered in ratio 7:5:9 (Direct:
UDC/Steno Gr-II:SI) w.e.f. 02.02.2010, Sub Inspector with three years qualifying service in their grade are eligible for promotion to the grade of Inspector. This is Non-Selection post.
ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 22 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV .....
3.3 There was no roaster vacancy for the post of Inspector from the feeder cadre of UDC/ Steno gr-II. However aggrieved by the action of the department, some of the UDC of the department filed an OA No. 01183 of 2016 in the CAT Allahabad alleging that the department is going to fill up the vacancy of Inspectors only from Sub-Inspectors which is against the recruitment Rule. Hon'ble CAT Allahabad in the aforesaid OA vide its order dated 15/09/2016 ordered that "prima-facie it appears that the counsel for the applicant has made out a case in favour of the applicants, hence the respondents are directed not to proceed with the DPC if it is going to be held on 16.09.2016". Hon'ble CAT, Allahabad Bench vide its order dated 12/10/2017 vacated the Stay with certain modification in the order dated 15/09/2016 which are as under: -
(i) That the official respondents will fill up the vacancies of Inspector leaving 10 Vacancies as unfilled;
(ii) Any promotion made shall remain subject to final out come of this O.Α.
(iii) Promotion order should be issued to the selected candidates in which it should be specifically mentioned that their promotions shall be subject to final outcome of this O.Α."
6.2 One Mr. Rajiv Ranjan was considered for promotion, whose name appeared at Sl. No. 16. He is also one of the parties, being Applicant No. 2, in Ashish Bhatnagar (supra). It is noticeable that Ashish Bhatnagar and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan cannot lay claim simultaneously, inasmuch as, on the basis of his own seniority, Ashish Bhatnagar had already been considered for promotion in a DPC meeting held prior to 14.11.2017, i.e., on 22.05.2015. Therefore, the cases of Ashish Bhatnagar and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, in terms of their respective seniority in the Sub-Inspector cadre (which is one of the feeder cadres), stood considered and decided by the DPC ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 23 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV on the basis of their inter se seniority and merit. Notably, no objection was raised at the relevant point of time. 6.3 It is further revealed that the last DPC for the years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15, for promotion to the grade of Inspector from the UDC/Stenographer Grade-II cadre, was held on 11.04.2014, wherein the applicants herein were recommended. Pursuant thereto, the subsequent DPC for the year 2015-16 was held on 22.05.2015 in respect of the feeder cadre of UDC/Stenographer Grade-II for promotion to the post of Inspector, wherein only one vacancy was available. The said DPC was conducted in terms of para 4, which reads as under:
"4. Year-wise break-up of the number of regular vacancies indicated in Column 7 of Item 3:
Year General SC ST Total
2015-16 01 - 02 (Carried forward) 03
6.4 It is undisputed that vacancies for the post of
Inspector are filled 66.67% through direct recruitment and 33.33% by promotion from the Sub-Inspector cadre.
To be eligible, Sub-Inspectors must be at Level 4 of the pay matrix, have completed 15 years of regular service, and undergone the mandatory 2-4 week training in the relevant field, as prescribed by the Ministry's notification dated July 30, 2018.
ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 24 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV 6.5 Much reliance has been placed by Mr. Kripa Shankar Prasad, learned counsel for the proposed respondents, on the decision rendered by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1183/2016 titled Sanjay Kumar Srivastava & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.. Upon perusal of the said decision, it is evident that the issue involved therein pertained to the ratio of recruitment to the post of Inspector from different sources, which was revised from 1:1:1 to 7:5:9.
Paragraph 16 of the said judgment reads as under:
"16. In accordance with the order dated 8.1.2009, the respondents modified the ratio of recruitment to the post of inspector from different sources from 1:1:1 to 7:5:9 respectively for direct recruitment, promotion from among the UDC/Steno-III and promotion from among the sub-inspectors and the notification dated 2.10.2010 was issued by the official respondents after considering total promotional posts available for UDC/Steno-III and sub-inspectors in view of the directions of this Tribunal to fix appropriate quota for promotion as inspectors in consonance with their total strength and promotional posts available for them. Hence, it is clear that the ratio was fixed keeping in view the total strength and total promotional posts available. This would imply that such ratio is considered on total strength. To keep the promotion prospects constant for both UDC/Steno-III and sub-inspectors on account of promotion to the post of Inspectors, it would be desirable to apply the ratio on the total posts as per the discussions in para 13 of this order. If the ratio is applied on yearly vacancy, then the number of promotional post of inspectors available for sub-inspectors and UDC/Steno-III will keep on changing depending on the rate of retirement/attrition for the employees of the feeder cadres promoted to the post of inspector. Hence, we are of the opinion that the background of the decision to issue the notification dated 02.10.2010 would imply that the ratio of 7:5:9 will apply to total sanctioned post of inspectors at least till such time the criteria for application of the ratio is clearly specified in the rules through suitable amendment."
ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 25 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV 6.6 Furthermore, it is evident from paragraph 19 of Sanjay Kumar Srivastava (supra) that the decision of the respondents was not interfered with. For ready reference, paragraph 19 of Sanjay Kumar Srivastava (supra) reads as under:
"19. In view of the above discussions, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision of the official respondents in this matter, particularly since the applicants have failed to furnish adequate justifications to substantiate their averment that the ratio stipulated in the notification dated 02.10.2010 will apply to the vacancy arising every year. On the other hand, the decision of the respondents for the DPC for 2016 is found to be in accordance with the notification dated 02.10.2010 and the order dated 08.01.2009 of Principal Bench of this Tribunal aiming to reduce the imbalance in the promotional prospects for both category of employees. However, it is necessary that the official respondents should consider suitable amendments to the Recruitment Rules/notification dated 02.10.2010 to clearly specify how the ratio in notification dated 02.10.2010 will be applied in accordance with the policy objectives of the Government. The OA is disposed of accordingly and the interim order dated 12.10.2007 is vacated. There will no order as to costs."
Therefore, the decision in Sanjay Kumar Srivastava (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6.7 It is an undisputed position that, in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the decision rendered in O.A. No. 1013/2019 titled Ashish Bhatnagar and anr. Vs. UOI and Ors., the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal observed as under:
"3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants had previously been working on the post of sub inspector In the Central Bureau of Narcotics and after promotion given to them recently they are presently working on the post of inspector. The services of the applicants are governed by the Narcotics Department (Group C post) recruitment (amendment Rules) 2010. Prior to the enforcement of the amended recruitment rules of 2010 the total number of post in the cadre of inspectors where required to be filled up ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 26 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV in the ratio of 1:1: 1 by direct recruitment, by promotion from the grade of UDCs/ Steno Grade -III and by promotion from the grade of Sub Inspector.. However following the judgment dated 09.01.2009, rendered by the Principal bench of the Tribunal in OA Number 2120/2007, P.K Dixit and others Vs Union of India and Others, the respondents revisited the issue of fixation of appropriate quota for the three streams of recruitment to the post office inspector and the end result was the revise recruitment rules notified vide GSR .56 (E) dated 02.02.2010 which provided that henceforth,the ratio of filling up the post of inspector in narcotics commissionerate by direct recruitment, by promotion from the grade of UDCs/Steno Grade-III and by the promotion from the Grade of Sub Inspector shall respectfully be & 7:5:9.
4. It is stated that after applying the admitted ratio of 7:5:9 to the three sources of recruitment to the post of inspector, the number of post of inspector, the number of post available for each of the three sources was (i) Direct recruitment 62 (ii) UDCs/ Stenographers Grade III: 45 and (iii) Sub Inspector 80. Sometimes towards the end of 2016, it was found that against the aforesaid shares of post, the strength of Inspectors, who were promoted from the grade of UDCs/ Stenographers Grade III stood at 50, i.e the representations of the officers promoted from the grade of UDC, Stenographer in the cadre of Inspectors stood in excess of the quota allotted to them under the recruitment rules. As against the feeder cadre of UDC/s /Stenographers Grade III, the feeder grade of Sub Inspector, at the same point of time, was having a representation of only 46 which was 34 posts less than its allotted quota of 80 posts. This over promotion, or promotion to the excess of the quota allotted to the feeder grade of UDCs/ Stenographer had come about on account of the mistake committed by the respondent department in making promotions in the past in terms of vacancy based roster. Instead of a post based roster, which resulted in clear violation of the revised ratio as laid down in the amended Recruitment rules of 2010. It was only on account of the aforementioned position of comparative representation of the feeder grades in the cadre of Inspectors, as it stood in August 2016, that the respondent department vide letter dated 26.8.2016 had initiated a process for holding a DPC confined only to the feeder grade of Sub Inspector. A large Number of UDCs, claiming to be aggrieved by the action of department in confining the recruitment process to the post as Inspector as initiated with a letter dated 26/8/2016 to only the feeder grade of sub inspector, approached this Tribunal by means of OA No-1183 of 2016-Sanjay Kumar Srivastava and others Vs Union of India & Ors praying that they should also be included in the considered zone of propose DPC. The applicants in the aforesaid OA also obtained ex parte Interim order dated 15.09.2016 staying the DPC proceedings initiated by the Department exclusively by the feeder grade of Sub Inspector. After coming to know of the aforesaid OA No-1183 of 2016, and the stay on DPC proceedings granted therein, several of the affected Sub Inspectors joined the proceedings of the O.A by getting impleaded therein 'and contested the ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 27 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV same. The department also appeared in the said OA and filed a short counter affidavit opposing the claim of the applicants therein and supporting the case of Sub Inspectors."
6.8 The 1:1:1 or 7:5:9 ratio is applicable only to the post of Inspector and cannot be perpetually extended to the post of Superintendent.
6.9 The Review DPC for the period 2001-02 (10.10.2001) to 2012-13 was conducted on 25.04.2023, necessitated by changes in the vacancy structure following the implementation of a post-based roster on 10.10.2001. This date also coincides with the notification of the Recruitment Rules for the Inspector post, covering direct recruitment as well as promotions from UDC/Steno and Sub-Inspector cadres. Subsequently, the Review DPC for 2013-14 to 2017-18 was held on 09.10.2023 following the same procedure. In this context, the revised seniority list for the Inspector cadre, issued as on 01.04.2013, is presently under challenge. 6.10 Similarly, the UDC/Steno cadre requires resolution of seniority issues between direct recruits and promotees.
6.11 In any circumstances, seniority is determined by the date of appointment to the respective posts of Sub- Inspector or UDC/Steno Grade.
ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 28 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV 6.12 To determine the appropriate ratio for filling an Inspector vacancy, the 7:5:9 distribution must be applied, accounting for seniority among Sub-Inspectors and UDC/Steno Grade-III posts, drawn from direct recruitment, promotion from UDC/Steno, and promotion from Havaldar.
6.13 By way of illustration, H.K. Danwani joined as an LDC on February 11, 1992, and was promoted to UDC on July 3, 2001, based on his position in the UDC seniority list. He subsequently attained the post of Inspector on April 19, 2011. The question arises whether a Review DPC can now be conducted in 2023/2024 to determine his seniority as an Inspector for the year 2014-2015. Undertaking such a retroactive exercise would disrupt the entire Inspector cadre and create widespread administrative anomalies. 6.14 Similarly, Ashish Bhatnagar was appointed as a Sub-Inspector on June 2, 1997, and promoted to Inspector on April 12, 2014, based on his seniority, which remained undisputed until the filing of OA No. 1013 of 2019 before the Allahabad Bench. At the same time, the respondents' promotion process for Superintendent posts was under challenge. Being in the third category, with a ratio of 9, Ashish Bhatnagar's ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 29 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV Inspector seniority cannot be assessed using the UDC/Steno ratio of 5. He also filed OA No. 606/2021 (pending before the Allahabad Bench), which includes a stay preventing two Superintendent posts from being filled by deputation. Notably, he did not implead the private respondents, indicating that his grievance arises from either the impact on his rights due to vacancies in the third category (ratio of 9) or his position being occupied by a deputationist under the Recruitment Rules notified on July 30, 2018.
6.15 In fact, the seniority position prior to January 1, 2015, ought not to have been disturbed, in view of the OM dated March 4, 2014, which stood settled. There has been no challenge to this OM dated March 4, 2014, by Ashish Bhatnagar and others.
6.16 In the case of Pawan Pratap Singh and Others vs. Reevan Singh and Others, (2011) 3 SCC 267, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"45. From the above, the legal position with regard to determination of seniority in service can be summarised as follows:
(i) The effective date of selection has to be understood in the context of the service rules under which the appointment is made. It may mean the date on which the process of selection starts with the issuance of advertisement or the factum of preparation of the select list, as the case may be.
(ii) Inter se seniority in a particular service has to be determined as per the service rules. The date of entry in a particular service or the date of substantive appointment is ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 30 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or the other or between one group of officers and the other recruited from different sources. Any departure therefrom in the statutory of rules, executive instructions or otherwise must be consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(iii) Ordinarily, notional seniority may not be granted from the backdate and if it is done, it must be based on objective considerations and on a valid classification and must be traceable to the statutory rules.
(iv) The seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service rules. It is so because seniority cannot be given on retrospective basis when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre and by doing so it may adversely affect the employees who have been appointed validly in the meantime."
6.17 In Amit Singh vs. Ravindra Nath Pandey, Civil Appeal Nos. 8324-8327 of 2022 [arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 30734-30737 of 2014], decided on 11.11.2022 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issue at hand was conclusively addressed. The Court held that in cases of inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees, the seniority list must be prepared by applying the roster system only to direct recruits and promotees appointed within the same recruitment year, and not otherwise, when the recruitment process extends beyond that year. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"22. A bench of three learned Judges of this Court in the case of P. Sudhakar Rao and others vs. U. Govinda Rao (2013) 8 SCC 693 and others has approved the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Pawan Pratap Singh and others (supra).
ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 31 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV
23. It is thus clear that the inter se seniority between the promotees and the direct recruits will have to be determined in accordance with the 1992 Rules. The 1992 Rules fix the quota of 67% for direct recruits and 33% for promotees. A "year of recruitment" has been defined to be a period of twelve months, commencing from the first day of July of the calendar year and as such, in the present case, the year of recruitment would be from 1st of July of 1997 to 30th of June 1998.
24. Admittedly, the direct recruits were appointed on 18th August, 1997, whereas the promotees were appointed on 16th December, 1997, i.e. both were appointed in the selection/recruitment year 1997-98. In view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 of the 1992 Rules, where the appointment of both the direct recruits and of the promotees were to be made in the same year of recruitment, regular appointments should not have been made unless selections were made from both the sources and a combined list was prepared in accordance with Rule 18 of the 1992 Rules. In view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 19 of the 1992 Rules, since the appointments in the same selection/recruitment year were made both by direct recruitment and by promotion, the names were required to be arranged in accordance with the cyclic order referred to in Rule 18 of the 1992 Rules. In view of Rule 18 of the 1992 Rules, a combined select list has to be prepared by taking the names of candidates from the relevant list, as per the quota for the direct recruits. In other words, the first name in the list was required to be that of a promotee.
25. A combined seniority list was initially prepared in accordance with the said provisions of the 1992 Rules on 18th September 2003. However, it had been erroneously changed on 29th July, 2005, thereby giving undue benefits to the direct recruits over the promotees. Such a list was in contravention of the provisions of Rules 18 and 19 of the 1992 Rules. When the 1992 Rules specifically emphasized that, where in any year of recruitment, appointments were to be made both by direct recruitment and by promotion, regular appointments could not have been made unless selections were made from both the sources and a combined list was to be prepared in accordance with Rule 18 of the 1992 Rules, the seniority list dated 29th July 2005, which provided a higher seniority to the direct recruits, is, for the aforesaid reasons, not sustainable in law.
26. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) and others (supra) is concerned, the same would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the promotees, who were promoted in 1991, claimed seniority over the direct ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 32 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV recruits who were substantively appointed at a prior point of time in 1990. In any case, the 1992 Rules did not fall for consideration in the said case.
27. As already discussed herein above, we are of the considered view that, in view of Rules 18 and 19 of the 1992 Rules, the seniority list dated 29th July 2005, impugned before the High Court, is not sustainable in law.
28. In the result, we find no merit in the present appeals. The appeals deserve to be dismissed and, as such, are dismissed."
6.18 Subsequently, in Hariharan & Ors. v. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao & Ors., Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2022 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16161 of 2018), the Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed the issue of inter-se seniority and observed as follows:
"In the facts of the case, there is no dispute that as far as the posts of Income Tax Inspectors are concerned, the principle of rota and quota or rotation of quota will apply. The posts of Income Tax Inspectors are being filled in by direct recruits and promotees in the proportion already fixed. Therefore, a roster will apply where the points will be for direct recruits and promotees as per the proportion fixed.
22. We have, therefore, no manner of doubt that till the year 2018, in relation to the recruitment and vacancies to the posts of Income Tax Inspectors, the financial year was being treated as the recruitment year or vacancy year.
Thus, on facts, it can be concluded that the process of recruiting direct recruits to 35 posts of Income Tax Inspectors of the vacancy/recruitment year 2009-10 commenced in the same year 2009-10.
The argument made before us is that the decision in the case of K. Meghachandra2 will have to be ignored on the ground that it is per incuriam as the attention of the Bench which decided the case was not invited to the binding decisions of the Constitution Bench in the case of Mervyn Coutindo3 and a Coordinate Bench in the case of M. Subba Reddy6. Prima facie, we find substance in the argument that the attention of the Bench which decided the case of K. Meghachandra2 was not invited to the aforesaid binding precedents. Therefore, we are of the view that the appropriate course of action will be to refer the question to a larger Bench. We are dealing with a case where the 'rotation of quota' or rota and quota system is being followed. If the promotees are recruited in ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 33 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV the relevant recruitment year, but the process of recruitment of the direct recruits which commenced in the same recruitment year could not be completed in the same year, the direct recruits appointed subsequently will have to be interspaced between the promotees of the same recruitment year. In such a case, it cannot be said that direct recruits were not available during the recruitment year. Their appointment could not be made during the same year, though the process of appointment commenced in the same year. But, if the process of recruitment of the direct recruits is completed in the same recruitment year but an adequate number of candidates could not be selected, the shortfall should be carried forward to the next recruitment year. In such cases, the candidates who are selected against shortfall vacancies will have to be bunched below the promotees of the earlier years. Unless such a procedure is followed, the rotation of quota system will be defeated.
31. Coming to the facts of the case, though process of recruitment of direct recruits to the post of Income Tax Inspectors commenced in the recruitment year 2009-10, the same could not be completed in the same recruitment year. This is not a case where an adequate number of direct recruits could not be recruited even though the recruitment was done in the recruitment year itself. In this case, those who were eligible for direct recruitment were deprived of the opportunity as the process of recruitment could not be completed during the same recruitment year 2009-10 due to no fault on their part.
The documents annexed to the counter affidavit show that the segregation of vacancies for 2009-10 and 2010- 11 has been properly made.
32. In any event, the decision in the case of K. Meghachandra2 has a prospective operation. The seniority list of 7th September 2016 was made in terms of the decision in the case of N. R. Parmar1. Hence, the same could not have been altered on 13th February 2018 ,when the said decision was in force.
33. Thus, our conclusion can be summarised as under:
The decision in the case of K. Meghachandra requires reconsideration by a larger Bench in view of the fact that the binding decision of a Constitution Bench in the case of Mervyn Coutindo3 and another binding decision of a Coordinate Bench in the case of M. Subba Reddy were not placed for consideration before the Bench which decided the case of K. Meghachandra ; Even assuming that the case of K. Meghachandra was correctly decided, paragraph 39 of the decision shows that the decision in the case of N.R. Parmar has been prospectively overruled by observing that the decision will not affect the inter-se seniority already fixed on the basis of the case of N.R. Parmar and the same was protected. It is also held that the decision will apply prospectively except where seniority is to be fixed under the relevant Rules from the date of vacancy / the date of ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 34 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV advertisement. In this case, as on the date when the case of N.R. Parmar was decided, there was no rule which required that the interse-seniority of direct recruits and promotees to the post of Income Tax Inspectors should be fixed from the date on which a person is born in the cadre. In the facts of the case, the seniority list was correctly published on 7th September 2016 in terms of the decision in the case of N.R. Parmar by interspacing those direct recruits who were eligible in the recruitment year 2009-10 and were appointed against the vacancies of the said year with 53 promotees who were promoted vide DPC dated 29th June 2009. The seniority list was later on modified on 13th February 2018 without giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected direct recruits.
34. At this stage, we may note here the factual aspects stated in the affidavit dated 12th October 2022 filed by Shri Anurag Chandra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in the Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat. The affidavit refers to the interim order dated 13th July 2018 in the Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.16161 of 2018, by which status quo as of that date with respect to the posts held, was ordered to be maintained. The affidavit notes that as a result of the interim order, the promotion to the cadre of Income Tax Officers from the cadre of Income Tax Inspectors could not take place. As a result, 33.33% of posts in the cadre of Income Tax Officers are vacant as the same cannot be filled in. As noted earlier, the decision in the case of K.Meghachandra applies prospectively i.e. from 19th November 2019. Prima facie, the seniority fixed based on the decision in the case of N.R. Parmar has to be given effect.
Therefore, while we are recommending a reference to a larger Bench, interim relief will have to be vacated and seniority will have to be fixed on the basis of the impugned judgment, subject to the final outcome of the appeal or the decision of the larger Bench, as the case may be.
35. Hence, we pass the following order:
We are of the considered view that the following questions need to be decided by a larger Bench of five Hon'ble Judges:
a.Whether the decision in the case of K. Meghachandracan be said to be a binding precedent in the light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Mervyn Coutindo and the law laid down by a Coordinate Bench in the case of M. Subba Reddy?
b.In absence of specific statutory rules to the contrary, when the 'rotation of quota' rule is applicable, whether the seniority of direct recruits who were recruited in the recruitment process which commenced in the relevant recruitment year but ended thereafter, can be fixed by following 'rotation of quota' by interspacing them with the direct recruits of the same recruitment year who were promoted earlier during the same year?
ii. We direct the Registry to place this petition before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.
ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 35 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV iii. The interim relief granted on 13th July 2018 stands vacated. Effect shall be given to the impugned judgment subject to the final outcome of this appeal or reference, as the case may be. We also clarify that the seniority of promotees and direct recruits who may be appointed hereafter will be subject to the final outcome of the decision of this appeal or the decision in reference, as the case may be. Accordingly, concerned persons shall be informed in writing by the Income Tax Department.
36. In the Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No.12422 of 2022, the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 6th February 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna which follows the decision in the case of N.R. Parmar1 dealing with the issue of appointment of Income Tax Inspectors pertaining to the recruitment year 2009-10. This appeal be heard along with the main appeal." 6.19 It may be observed that applying the ratio laid down in K. Meghachandra (supra) in a piecemeal manner would render the ratio in N.R. Parmar (supra) meaningless and redundant for the applicants herein, who were appointed and borne in the cadre of Inspectors after 01.01.2015 and 19.11.2019, as they were not interspersed within the earlier seniority list. 6.20. We may also refer to Hariharan (supra). In paragraph 7, the Hon'ble Apex Court noted that "a status quo order was passed, observing that on 13th July 2018, notice was issued in Special Leave Petition No. 16161 of 2018, which is the subject matter of the present Civil Appeal, and by an interim order, the status quo as of that date was to be maintained. The appellants, who were respondents in the writ petition before the High ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 36 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV Court, are promotees who were elevated pursuant to the DPC dated 29th June 2009.
6.21. Now, the said status quo order in favor of direct recruits has been vacated in Hariharan (supra), of course, subject to the final outcome of the appeal or reference.
6.22. The official respondents, for reasons best known to them, did not follow the ratio or directions laid down in K. Meghachandra (supra) in the seniority list dated 07.10.2022, nor in the subsequent list of 04.12.2023; instead, they followed the dictum of N.R. Parmar (supra), which has since been overruled. 6.23. We find that the ratio established in K. Meghachandra (supra) has neither been set aside nor stayed. The respondents appear to have been unduly influenced by the observations in Hariharan (supra). The official respondents cannot rely on those observations to finalize a list based on the now-overruled decision in N.R. Parmar (supra), thereby creating confusion arising from their own actions. We also reiterate the observations in K. Meghachandra (supra), which state that "none can be identified as a selected candidate on the date when the recruitment process commences. On that date, a body of persons aspiring for ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 37 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV the vacancy intended for direct recruits does not exist. Persons responding to an advertisement cannot claim any service-related rights, let alone a right to have their seniority counted from the date of the advertisement. In other words, only upon completion of the process does an applicant become a selected candidate." (emphasis added).
6.24 In view of the foregoing, it is abundantly clear that the ratio laid down in K. Meghachandra (supra) ought to have been followed, as mandated by OMs dated 13.08.2021 and 18.08.2021. Furthermore, these OMs explicitly preclude reopening finalized past cases. 6.25 The post-based roster for the Sub-Inspector cadre is to be implemented internally within that group, functioning as a two-dimensional mechanism. Seniority is to be determined separately for direct recruits and promotees, and the quota rotation, based on the percentage of vacancies allocated for direct recruitment and promotion under the applicable recruitment/service rules, continues to govern the annual filling of vacancies within the Sub-Inspector cadre.
6.26 The decision to conduct the DPC for the Inspector grade, effective from the notification date of the original ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 38 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV Recruitment Rules (10.10.2001), materially altered the seniority list as of 01.01.2015. Any review DPC should have adhered to the 7:9 ratio applicable to Ashish Bhatnagar. The official respondents, relying on the interim order dated 10.01.2020 and without fully considering the issues in two OAs pending before the Allahabad Bench, expanded the Review DPC's scope back to 10.10.2001, overlooking a 2010 amendment. Ashish Bhatnagar did not challenge the DPC prior to his promotion on 12.09.2014, nor did he challenge the notification dated 30.07.2018, either of which could have affected his eligibility for the post of Superintendent. 6.27 The respondents have failed to justify why a review of direct recruitment to the Sub-Inspector post (as opposed to UDC/Steno) was necessary. The review DPC should have concerned the Havaldar feeder cadre (in a 7:9 ratio to Sub-Inspector) rather than directly appointed Sub-Inspectors. There is no evidence that the current applicants, appointed from UDC/Steno, belonged to the Havaldar feeder cadre or were promoted as Sub- Inspectors through that channel. The applicants were appointed as Inspectors according to their post-based roster in a 5:1 ratio. The review should have focused on vacancies for direct recruits to Sub-Inspector and ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 39 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV promotees from Havaldar, applying a 7:9 ratio, rather than considering UDC/Steno positions, which do not fall within the Havaldar hierarchy.
6.28 The interim order passed by the Allahabad Bench of Co-Ordinate Bench of this Tribunal cannot justify the respondents' approach, including Ashish Bhatnagar. When examined against the chronology of events, it is evident that in Hariharan(supra), the Apex Court observed that the interim relief granted on 13.07.2018 in favor of direct recruits was vacated, directing that "effect shall be given to the impugned judgment (i.e., K. Meghachandra), subject to the final outcome of this appeal or reference, as the case may be." The official respondents cannot disregard OMs dated 13.08.2021 and 18.08.2021 merely on the basis that K. Meghachandra (supra) applies prospectively from 19.11.2019. The mandate of these OMs must be applied and considered in the overall application of K. Meghachandra(supra).
6.29 Needless to mention that promotion to the post of Superintendent, in the case of the applicants, is to be governed by the revised/amended notification dated 03.07.2018 in the ratio prescribed therein. Since the proposed respondents in M.A. No. 3193/2025 are direct- ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 40 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV recruit Inspectors, their seniority is required to be reckoned from the date of their appointment. Accordingly, the official respondents shall take appropriate steps by duly considering the date of appointment and the number of vacancies available.
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1 In view of the above analysis and discussions, the O.A is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The official respondents are directed to redraw and finalize the seniority list, applying the 7:9 ratio inter se between direct recruits of Sub-Inspectors and promotions from Hawaldar to Sub-Inspector, without disturbing the ratio of sahre amongst the feeder cadre of UDC/Steno.
(ii) The seniority of UDC/Steno promoted to Inspector as of 01.01.2015 shall remainprotected. The respondents shall also consider such officers for promotion to the post of Superintendent from the due date as per the notification dated 30.07.2018, granting consequential benefits where they fulfill eligibility conditions under the Recruitment Rules, within 45 days.
ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 41 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV
(iii) The exercise shall be conducted in accordance with K. Meghachandra (supra) and OMs dated 13.08.2021 and 18.08.2021.
(iv) The DPC for the post of Superintendent shall be convened, subject to the outcome of two posts reserved for two applicants in the 7:9 ratio falling to their share in OA No. 1013/2019 and OA No. 606/2021 pending before the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal. 7.2. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
7.3. The Court Officer is directed to return the original records to the learned counsel for the respondents, against due acknowledgment.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
ANKIT
ANKITSAKLANI
SAKL 2026.04.1
0
ANI 11:13:05
+05'30'