Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Chinta Kodanda Ram vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 1 March, 2024
x €) I OA/310/00758/2019 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH QA/310/00758/2019 Dated the St day of March 'Two Thousand Twenty Four CORAM: HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J) HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Member (A) Chinta Kodanda Ram S/o. Chinta Satyanarayana Inspector of Police (Currently duty charge as Superintendent of Police (North) _ Puducherry. .. Applicant * By Advocate Mr. M.R. Thangavel Vs 1. The Union of India Rep. By the Chief Secretary to the Government Government of Puducherry Puducherry. 2. The Under Secretary to the Government Home Department Government of Puducherry Puducherry. _3. Inspector General of Police Office of the Inspector General of Police Police Department Government of Puducherry Puducherry. 4. The Superintendent of Police (HQ) Head Quarters, Police Department Government of Puducherry Puducherry. 5. Mr. &.. Murugavel Inspector of Police (Current duty charge as Superintendent of Police) (Traffic -- North East) ' Puducherry, 6. Mr. N. Selvam Inspector of Police (Current duty charge as Superintendent of Police, (CBCID) C.LD. Complex . Beach Road, Puducherry. 7, Mr. C. Maran Inspector of Police (Current duty charge as Superintendent of Police, (East) JN. Street Beach Road, Puducherry. 8. Mr. Nallam Krishnaraya Babu Inspector of Police (Current duty charge as Superintendent of Police, (PAP) C.1.D. Complex Beach Road, Puducherry. 9. Mr. S. Bascarane - Inspector of Police (Current duty charge as Superintendent of Police, (WIRELESS) Puducherry. 10, Mr. V. Balakrishnan Inspector of Police Superintendent of Police(PCR CELL) Puducherry. 11. Mr. B. Ranganathan Inspector of Police (Current duty charge as Superintendent of Police, (WEST) Puducherry. 12. Mr. K.L. Veeravallabane "Inspector of Police (Current duty charge as Superintendent of Police Karaikal. ....Respondents By Advocates Mr. R. Syed Mustafa (RI-R4) M/s TVJ Associates (R5, 8, 9) OA/310900758/2019 3 OA/310/00758/2019 ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member(A)) The applicant has filed the OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
easeees to set aside the Final Seniority List No. 1234/Pol/Estt.J(AVA2/2009 dated 07.03.2019 for the post of Sub- Inspector of Police issued by the Superintendent of Police (HQ), the 4" Respondent, read with the order No. F.12013/04/2018/P1/Home dated 02.05.2019 issued by the 2"
Respondent and consequently direct the Respondents to confirm the Final Seniority list No. 1234/Pol/Estt.1(A)/A2/2009 dated 05.04.2018 issued by the Home Department, Government of Puducherry, the 2" Respondent, and may pass such other order or orders that are necessary to meet the ends of justice."
2. The facts, as stated by the Applicant, are given below, in brief:-
i. The applicant was appointed to the temporary post of Sub-Inspector of Police on 26.02.1991 in the Police Department, Puducherry, on compassionate ground. The Applicant claims that he was the senior most appointee of the year to the post of Sub-Inspector. Subsequent to his appointment, 8 candidates were selected on 14.03.1991, for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police, through 'direct recruitment. Among the said 8 candidates, 6 candidates were granted appointment on 08.04.1991. Thereafter, 8 Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police were promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police by the order, dated 13.07.1991. Further, 3 candidates were appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police on 17.07.1991, through direct recruitment.
ii. The seniority list for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, from Serial No.148 to 191, was issued by the 2" Respondent on 27.02.2002. The seniority 4 0A/310/00758/2019 list contained the Applicant's name at Serial No. 2(149). Next to the name of the Applicant, the candidates through direct recruitment were arrayed. Therefore, some of the promoted candidates made their objections to the tentative seniority list in total for the reason that the rota basis ratio of 1:1 was not followed in fixing the seniority among the candidates appointed through promotion and direct recruitment... Their objections were considered and the revised Tentative Seniority List of Sub-Inspectors of Police was issued on 14.05.2002. In the said revised seniority list, the Applicant's name was found at Serial No. 3 (150). Later, the final seniority list for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police was issued on 22.08.2002, in which the Applicant was placed at Serial No. 2 (149). Since the Applicant was the senior-most candidate, among the 1991 recruitees, his seniority was not affected and his seniority was never questioned by the junior candidates. One Mr. P. Bascaradasse submitted a representation, dated 11.03.2002. The Final Seniority list, dated 22.08.2002, was approved, thereafter, for the post of Sub-Inspector Police.
iii. The final seniority list for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, dated 22.08.2002, was challenged by some of the affected candidates, by filng O.A Nos. 452 and 453 of 2003, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, with a prayer to re-fix the seniority, as per the Rota rules enshrined in the recruitment rules for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The Tribunal, by the order, dated 09.12.2004, set aside the final seniority list, with direction to revise the seniority, as per the Rota Rules. The Tribunal's order, dated 09.12.2004, was challenged by the private respondents therein, by filing W.P. No.24285 of 2005, 5 OA/310/00758/2019 before the Madras High Court. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition by the order, dt.01.07.2009, by remitting the case back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. The Tribunal again heard the case and passed order, dated 05.03.2010, reiterating the earlier order, dated 09.12.2004. In compliance with _the order of the Tribunal, the 4th Respondent issued the revised seniority list for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police on 05.03.2013, in which the Applicant's name was found at serial No.3 (150). In the meanwhile, on 25.07.2016, the 4"
Respondent (the Superintendent of Police, Head Quarters, Puducherry) issued the Tentative Seniority List for the post Inspector of Police from SI. Nos. 107 to
137. In the said list, the Applicant's name was placed at Serial No. 7 (113).
iv. The Applicant, along with others, was promoted to the post Inspector of 'Police, on ad hoc basis, on 22.11.2004. Later, the Applicant was regularised in the post of Inspector of Police, by an order, dated 15.06.2016, with effect from 22.11.2004.
v. To the shock and surprise of the Applicant, the 4" Respondent issued another Final Seniority List for the post of the Sub-Inspector of Police, on 07.03.2019, in which the seniority of the Applicant was altered. He was placed far below his juniors and his name was found at Serial No. 11(158) of the List.
The said revised seniority list does not contain any reason for revising the Applicant's seniority. Further, due to the alteration in seniority, the Applicant, who had been the senior-most for nearly 26 years, was placed at the bottom of the seniority of the year, as far most junior to all. Since the same will have many adverse consequences on his career, he challenged the seniority list, dated
6 0A/310/00758/2019 07.03.2019, by filing OA No. 360 of 2019 and the same was disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to pass an order on his representation, dated 25.07.2018.
vi. The applicant further submits that, in the order, dated 02.05.2019, the 2™ respondent has stated that, pursuant to the orders, dated 09.12.2004 and 05.03.2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O A No. 503 of 2006, the revised seniority list, dated 05.03.2013, was issued without calling for prior objections from the concerned incumbents and for that reason the issue of finalising the seniority of Sub-Inspectors of Police remained unsettled even till May, 2019. The revised Seniority List, dated 05.04.2018, was published on the website. | vil. As per the Applicant, the impugned Seniority List placed the Applicant "below the candidates who were appointed after him. Since the Impugned Seniority List, dated 07.03.2019, issued for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police has not arrayed the seniority of the candidates, without following the date of appointment, it is totally invalid. Even if the vacancies to which the recruitments were made arose even before the date of appointment, seniority cannot be fixed based on the arising of the vacancy. Seniority of a candidate can only be counted from their date of appointment. The Applicant has furnished his date of appointment as well as those of the Private Respondents as follows:
7 OA/310/00758/2019 Sl. /Name . Date of appointment No. A Chinta Kodanda Ram 26.02.1991 RS |K. Murugavel 14.03.1991 R6 |N. Selvam 14.03.1991 R7_-- |C. Maran 14.03.1991 R8_ |Nallam Krishnaraya Babu 14.03.1991 R10 |V. Balakrishnan 14.03.1991 R9 |S. Bascarane 08.07.1991 R11 |B. Ranganathan 08.07.1991 Ri2 |K.L. Veeravallabane 08.07.1991 viii. As far as the seniority of the Applicant is concerned, he pleads that it is settled and the DoPT order, which was issued on 04.03.2014, cannot be enforced against the Applicant with retrospective effect. Further, the N.R.Parmar case does not deal with Compassionate Appointments. It only _Clarifies the rota-quota method in seniority. Re-opening of the issue which has already been settled and not contested by anybody, till the year 2017, is highly improper. | ix. The Applicant also submits that, apart from altering the final seniority for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for the purpose of lowering the seniority of the Applicant, the 4" Respondent has also issued another new Tentative Seniority List for the post of Inspector of Police on 09.05.2019, in which the ' Applicant's position has been completely downgraded to the 14" (120) position from the position of 7 (113). Later, on 14.05.2019, this Seniority List was withdrawn. However, the Respondents still retain the Seniority List, dated 07.03.2019, issued for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.
8 0A/310/00758/2019 x. So far, the 4th Respondent has issued several Tentative and 'Final Seniority Lists for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police as well as for the post of Inspector of Police. However, it has not yet been settled till date. The matter of fixation of seniority of the incumbents, holding the posts of Sub-Inspector and Inspector, has been dragging on. The Applicant has been made to suffer after 28 years of his "blemishiess" service.
. xl. The position of the applicant in the seniority lists of different dates, along with the status of the dispute involved, is summarised as follows, on the basis of the table furnished in the original application-
Date Particulars / Position of the Applicant 27.02.2002 Tentative Seniority List of Sub-Inspectors of Police was issued for serial nos. 148 to 216
149. Chinta Kothandharaman No objections raised against seniority of the Applicant. Only objections raised on rota issue.
14.05.2002 Revised Tentative Seniority List of Sub- Inspectors of Police issued
150. Chinta Kothandaraman Nobody raised objections against the}.
seniority of the Applicant.
22.08.2002 Final Seniority List of Sub-Inspectors of Police issued
149. Chinta Kothandharaman No objection raised against the Applicant's seniority. Only objections raised on rota issue.
05.03.2013 In compliance with the Tribunal's Order, Revised Seniority List of Sub-Inspectors of Police issued.
150. Chinta Kothandharaman 9 OA/310/00758/2019 No objections raised on the seniority of the Applicant.
25.07.2016 Tentative Seniority List for the Post of Inspector issued.
113. Chinta Kothandharaman No objections raised against Applicant's seniority.
22.11.2017 Final Seniority list of Sub-Inspectors of Police was issued.
150. Chinta Kothandharaman 14.12.2017 For the first time, K. Murugavel raised objection against the seniority of the Applicant, based on the DoPT order, dt.
04.03.2014.
05.04.2018 After testing seniority of the Applicant with the DoPT Order, the Final Seniority List of Sub-Inspectors of Police issued.
150. Chinta Kothandharaman 06.04.2018 Fresh tentative Seniority List of Inspectors of Police issued.
113. Chinta Kothandaraman 07.03.2019 Final Seniority List of Sub-Inspectors of Police issued,
158. Chinta Kothandaraman 09.05.2019 Tentative Seniority List of Inspectors of Police was issued.
120. Chinta Kothandaraman 14.05.2019 The Tentative Seniority List, dated 09.05.2019, issued for the post of Inspector of Police, withdrawn.
3. The following are among the grounds raised by the applicant -
a. The Applicant has been placed as the senior most in the cadre of Sub- Inspector of Police for nearly 28 year (from 1991 to 2019). The Applicant "was appointed in the year 1991 and, at that time, there was no binding Rule to place a candidate, appointed on compassionate grounds, at the bottom of all the 10 0A/310/00758/2019 & other recruitees of the year. Moreover, the DoPT order was issued several years 'after the appointment of the Applicant and the DoPT itself has clarified that its order ought to be implemented only with prospective effect and specifically excludes its application on settled cases.
b. The Official Respondents failed to consider that the judgment, dated 03.07.2013, of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sudhakar Rao & ors Vs. U Govinda Rao & ors, has held that "seniority cannot be granted on retrospective basis when an employee has not even borne in the cadre and by doing so it may adversely affect the employees who have been appointed validly in the meantime".
C. Since the tentative Seniority List, dated 09.05.2019, for the post of Inspector of Police, which was issued based on the impugned Final Seniority List, was withdrawn, the qh Respondent also ought to have withdrawn the impugned seniority list, dated 07.03.2019.
d. The Respondents failed to see that the Final Seniority List, dated 05.04.2018, has not been challenged by anybody, so far, and, therefore, it is final. Hence, the action of the 4th Respondent in altering the same is highly unfair.
e. The applicant has contended that the impugned Seniority list has been passed without stating any reason for altering the seniority of the' Applicant. Hence, it is vague and ought to be quashed at the first instance.
A. Respondents failed to consider that seniority disputes pertaining to rota-
quota, are entirely different from that of inter-se seniority between direct recruits 11 0A/310/00758/2019 and compassionate appointees, while so, by citing the reason of rota-quota issue, re-opening the long settled seniority of the Applicant is highly unfair and unjust.
'g. The action of the Official Respondents in reversing the settled seniority of the Applicant alone, after 26 years of service, by enforcing the order of the DoPT with retrospective effect without giving him an opportunity to be heard, amounts to denial of equal opportunity to the Applicant and, thereby, it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
4. In the present matter, this Tribunal, vide order, dated 28.06.2019, has ordered that -
OT cesesses There, is no dispute regarding the fact that the applicants father died in the year 1991 and the applicant was granted compassionate appointment in the vacancy allotted to that purpose in the year 1991 itself. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down various guidelines for fixing the interse-seniority of direct recruits and promotees in N.R.Parmar v. Union of India and it is specifically directed that the "initiation of the recruitment process against a vacancy year ° would be the date of sending of requisition for filling of vacancies to the recruiting agency in the case of direct recruits." So, the initiation of recruitment process for the direct appointees in the year 1991 would be before 1991 and there is no question of the applicant becoming the senior most person among the appointees in the year 1991. The respondents had made out a prima facie case in support of their order. So, staying the implementation of seniority list at this stage will not be proper and justified. In view of the above facts, we are not inclined to stay the final seniority list of Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police. | "8. Any how we make it clear that any order passed by the respondents on the basis of the final seniority list of Sub-Inspector of Police dated 07.3.19 will be subject to the outcome of this OA......."
12 OA/310/00758/2019 "QO. The request made for IR of stay in the OA is disposed of accordingly." ,
5. The Official Respondents have filed their reply, countering the claims of
- the applicant as follows : -
i. They have submitted that the applicant, Thiru. Chintha Kothandaram, was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on compassionate grounds on 28.02.1991 due to sudden demise of his father while in service. The last compassionate appointment was offered to Thiru N.Ravikumar as SI of Police, in the year 1986. Thereafter, direct recruitment vacancies were notified in the year 1989, While the private respondents/ direct recruits, were undergoing physical test and written test in January, 1991, and were waiting for interview call, the Applicant, on the other hand, without going through any selection process, was offered compassionate appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, under the direct recruitment quota. As per the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee, held on 14.03.1991, 8 candidates were selected for the post of Sub Inspector of Police by direct recruitment and they were appointed as Sub-
Inspector of Police, as given below:
22.03.1991 FN
1. V Balakrishnan (SC)
2. K. Murugavel - 22.03.1991 FN 3, N. Selvam - 20.03.1991 AN 4 C Maran - 25.03.1991 FN
5. Nallam KrishnarayaBabu - 20.03.1991 AN
6. S Bascarane - 08.07.1991 FN @) 13 OA/310/00758/2019
7. B. Ranganathan - 08.07.1991 AN 8 K.L. Viravallabane - 08.07.1991 AN All of them were issued posting orders placing them on probation for a period of 2 years.
ii. The Respondents submit that the Department has issued tentative seniority list for 44 Sub-Inspectors of Police, including the Applicant, Thiru.Chintha Kothandaram, and 8 other direct recruits mentioned above, from seniority number 148 to 191, vide Memorandum No.A2/3-3/Estti.I/Pol/2002, dated 14.05.2002, inviting objections, if any. The tentative seniority list was finalized, considering the objections received. The final seniority list was issued 'vide Order No A2/3- 3/Estt.J/Pol/2002, dated 22.08.2002. In the tentative seniority list, the seniority position of Thiru. Chintha Kothandaram was 150 and, in the final seniority list, it was 149. Likewise, the seniority position of Thiru. Munusamy, who had already retired, was fixed at 148. Thereafter, the applicant, Thiru. Chintha Kothandaram, was given promotion as Inspector of Police on 22.11.2004, vide Order No 73/A2/Estt.I/Pol/2003, dated 22.11.2004, of the 3 Respondent, Inspector General of Police, Puducherry, as per the "recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee.
iii. The final seniority, issued on 22.08.2002, was challenged by one Thiru. Angappan, by filing O.A. No 452 of 2003 and also by one Thiru. Bascaradoss by filing O.A. No. 453 of 2003, before the CAT, Madras Bench. This Tribunal, in its order, dated 09.12.2004, set aside the seniority list, dated 22.08.2002, with a direction to recast the seniority of the applicants following the Rota rule 14 ©A/310/00758/2019 enunciated in paragraphs 2.4.1 to 2.4.4 of the Govt. of India, DoPT instructions, dated 03.07.1986, after following the due procedure, by giving notice to the affected individuals.
iv. The order, dated 09.12.2004, of the Tribunal was challenged in the Writ 'Petition Nos. 24285 and 24286 of 2005, by private respondents in the Hon'ble Madras High Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by remitting the case back to the Tribunal. This Tribunal, in its order, dated 05.03.2010, in the OA's 452 of 2003 and 453 of 2003, directed the respondents to implement its order, dated 09.12.2004. As regards O.A. 503 of 2006, filed by one Thiru. Kulandiavelu, the Tribunal, also directed the respondents to follow the quota rota rule and place the applicant at the appropriate place, following the direction issued by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 452 and 453 of 2003. The final seniority list of Sub-Inspectors of Police, issued on 22.08.2002, was quashed and the revised seniority list was issued vide order No. 1234/Pol/Estt.I(A)/A2/2009, dated 05.03.2013.
v. After that, the tentative seniority of Inspectors was drawn and issued, inviting objections, if any, vide Memorandum No 41045/Pol/Estt.[(AV/A2/2016, dated 25.07.2016, in which the seniority position of the Petitioner Thiru.
Chintha Kothanda Ram was at 113.
vi. The 9" respondent, Thiru. §. Bascarane, sth respondent, Thiru. K. Murugavel, 8" Respondent, Thiru. Nallam Kishnaraya Babu, and the 6th respondent, Thiru. N. Selvam, submitted their objections. The objection was mainly that the seniority fixed for the applicant above all the direct recruits was 15 OA/310/00758/2019 not correct, since his appointment was made on compassionate ground and, as per DoPT guidelines, his seniority should be fixed at the bottom of all the direct recruits. In order to dispose of their objections, opinion of the Law Department was sought for, and it referred the matter to the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (DP&AR), Puducherry. As the revised seniority list was "issued on 05.03.2013 directly, as the final seniority list, without issuing any tentative seniority list, the Police Department was advised to follow the due procedure for publishing the seniority list. Thus, the final seniority, issued on 05.03.2013, was treated as tentative seniority list, vide Memorandum No.1234/Pol/Esit I(A)/A2/2009, dated 22.11.2017, inviting objections, if any. While the 5" respondent, Thiru.K. Murugavel, 8" respondent Thiru. Nallam Krishnaraya Babu, gf respondent, Thiru. $8. Bascarane, and 12" respondent, Thiru K.L. Veeravallabane, raised same objections to place the applicant, Thiru. Chinthakothandaram, below all the direct recruits in the seniority list of Sub- Inspectors of Police, the applicant, Thiru. Chintha Kothandaram, made a representation, requesting to confirm the tentative seniority list issued on 22.11.2017, without any change.
vii. The 4 Respondent has stated that the then Director General of Police . took a decision to finalize the matter by confirming the seniority list issued on 22.11.2017, without any change, and the final seniority of Sub- Inspectors of Police was issued through a speaking order, vide Order No.1234/Pol/Estt.I(A)/A2/2009, dated 05.04.2018. The seniority position of Thiru. Chintha Kothandaram in the seniority list was at 150. After issuance of #) 16 OA/310/00758/2019 this final seniority list, a fresh tentative seniority list of Inspectors of Police was issued on 06.04.2018, vide Order No.41045/Pol/Estt.I(A)/A2/2016.
viii. Aggrieved by the same, the 5™ respondent, Thiru. K. Murugavel, gh respondent, Thiru. Nallam Krishnaraya Babu, and 9" respondent, Thiru. S. Bascarane, filed MA No 310/00238/2018 and OA No. 310/00545/2018, dt.
26.04.2018, before the CAT, Madras, and this Tribunal, vide its order, dated 26.04.2018, directed as follows:
"Keeping in view the limited prayer as also the fact that an appeal of the applicants is pending before the LG, Puducherry, this OA is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the appeal in accordance with law and specifically dealing with the applicability or otherwise of the DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014 within a period of two months from . the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meantime, final seniority list published on 05.04.2018 shall not be operated to the detriment of the applicants."
ix. The Home Department issued an Order No.F.12013/10/2018/P1/Home, dated 22.02.2019, giving direction to the Director General of Police to revise the seniority list issued on 05.04.2018. The seniority list of Sub-Inspectors of Police was revised and another final seniority list of Sub-Inspector of Police was issued, vide Order No.1234/Pol/Estt.I(A)/A2/2009, dated 07.03.2019.
x. The applicant, Thiru. Chintha Kothandaram, filed O.A. No 360 of 2019 in
-the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, with prayer to quash the seniority list, dated 07.03.2019, and, consequently, to direct the Superintendent of Police (HQ) (4 Respondent) to recast the seniority list of Sub-Inspectors of Police and place the applicant, Thiru. Chinthakothandaram, above the respondents 5 to 12.
@ "17 OA/310/00758/2019 The Tribunal disposed the OA vide its order, dated 20.03.2019, directing, "the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on Annexure A28 representation of the applicant dated 25.07.2018 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order". The Under Secretary to Govt., Home, Puducherry, issued a speaking Order, dated 02.05.2019, in which it was informed that the request of the applicant, Thiru. Chinthakothandaram, to reconfirm the earlier seniority was carefully considered and was not acceded to. After issue of the final seniority list of Sub- Inspectors of Police, dated 07.03.2019, the tentative seniority list of Inspectors . of Police was issued on 09.05.2019, vide Memorandum No.41045/Pol/Estt.I(A)/A2/2016, which was withdrawn vide Memorandum No. 41045/Pol/Estt.I(AVA2/2016, dated 14.05.2019, for administrative reasons and, finally, the tentative seniority list of Inspectors of Police was issued vide _Memorandum No. 41045/Pol/Esit. (A2)/2016, dated 24.06.2019.
xi. The basic contention of the Applicant is that his settled seniority cannot be treated as unsettled, and that, too, after prolonged delay, overlooking the fact that the Office Memorandum/Rules governing fixation of seniority, firstly, between the Direct Recruits and the promotees and then the Direct Recruits and the Compassionate Appointee like the Applicant, in this case, have undergone consistent change in implementing as well interpreting the same. The 'Respondents submit that, though it is an admitted fact that the Applicant was placed senior in the seniority list, dated 22.08.2002, the same was under
litigation for almost a decade and that the said seniority list, dated 22.08.2002,
18 0A/310/00758/2019 was quashed and a revised seniority list was issued on 05.03.2013. Therefore, the initial seniority list, dated 22.08.2002, cannot be construed as settled, in view of the fact that the said list was quashed and a revised list was issued on 05.03.2013, which is also unsettled, as the same was issued without following due procedure.
xii. The Respondents further submit that the fixation of seniority in relation to direct recruits and promotees for a recruitment year is governed by DOPT instructions, dated 03.07.1986, and following the said Office Memorandum, as interpreted by the Department, seniority was fixed, taking into account the date of appointment. However, the order of the Tribunal, as confirmed by the Hon'ble Courts above, directed to fix the seniority on the basis of Rota Quota Rule in accordance with the DOPT instructions, as referred to above. The stand of the Respondents is that it is settled law that a compassionate appointee need not undergo any process of selection on merit as a concession and should only
- possess the eligible qualification to the post for consideration. Respondents have contended that this concession, given on compassion, cannot confer on him the benefit of seniority as well. The Applicant is, thus, placed at the bottom of seniority in a particular recruitment year.
xiii. It has been reiterated that the original seniority list, dated 22.08.2002, was quashed and the revised seniority list was issued in the year 2013, which was unsettled, as due procedure was not followed, and, by that time, the law laid 'down by N.R. Parmar had come into effect. Hence, the core contention that the seniority is settled does not hold good. Respondents have also taken the plea "19 0.A/310/00758/2019 | that though the Applicant was appointed against a direct recruitment vacancy, on compassionate basis, the seniority could be either with effect from the date of | appointment or at the bottom of the list of direct recruits and promotees appointed in the recruitment year in which the Applicant was appointed. But, appointments made, both under direct recruitment and promotion quotas, have the possibility of moving to the top and below in the fixation of seniority, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the N.R. Parmar case. It is also submitted that the N.R. Parmar case has not laid down any new law _and that it is only the DOPT instructions, dated 03.07.1986, which were governing the seniority across the country in all Departments, which was given interpretation and followed by the Respondents.
xiv. The Respondents also submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its order dated, 19.11.2019, in Civil Appeal No. 8833 to 8835/2019 between K. Meghachandra Singh and others Vs Ningam Siro and others, has overruled the decision in N R. Parmar. However, it is made clear that the decision will 'not affect the inter-se seniority, as already fixed, based on N.R. Parmar, and held that the same would have prospective application.
xv. The Respondents have prayed for dismissing the OA stating that it is without any merits and is unsustainable.
6. The private respondents herein have mainly argued in their reply that the appointment of the applicant, on the death of his father, who was a Head Constable, should have been in the rank of Constable, but he was appointed in a "higher rank, that is, of Sub-Inspector of Police, on 26.02.1991, by which time 20 OA/310/00758/2019 the direct recruits had appeared in the written test, against the notification of 1989. Their other submissions are similar to those of the official respondents.
. 7. Heard both sides and perused the OA and other connected records.
8. In the present case, the seniority list, dated 22.08.2002, of Sub-Inspectors of Police, issued by the Police Department, Puducherry, was quashed and the revised seniority list was issued on 05.03.2013. As the seniority list, dated 05.03.2013, was issued without following the due procedure, it was held to be invalid and the issue of seniority remained unsettled. After observing the guidelines in the OM, dated 04.03.2014, of the DoPT, which was issued .incorporating the decisions in the case of N.R. Parmar, the final seniority was issued on 07.03.2019, with the approval of the Lt. Governor of the UT of Puducherry. The issue of seniority of Sub-Inspectors of Police was finally settled on 07.03.2019. The Respondents have also submitted that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order, dated 19.11.2019, pronounced in the K, Meghachandra Singh and others-Vs- Ningam Siro and, others is not applicable in the instant case of seniority of Sub-Inspectors of Police, as the same is applicable only prospectively.
9, Inthe course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Applicant has cited the order, dt. May 2, 1990, in Civil Appeal Nos. 194-202 of 1986, in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors, wherein certain observations have been made about the quota rule and that "It is not in the interest of service to unsettle a settled position."
'21 OA/310/00758/2019 --
10. We have also gone through the order, dt. December 14, 2022, of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Civil Appeal vide Diary No. 12422 of 2022 in SLP (C) No. 16161 of 2018, Hariharan & Ors Vs. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao & Ors ._ placed before us by the learned Counsel for Respondents 5 and 8. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as under:-
"34. ....As noted earlier, the decision in the case of K. Meghachandra applies prospectively i.e. from 19" 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.ii1........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."
'11. Certain issues need clarity in the matter. The first -- whether reopening of the seniority issue is prohibited in this case, under the OM, dt. 04.03.2014, of the DoPT. Because of a spate of representations and several rounds of litigation, it is quite evident that the final seniority list of Sub-Inspectors of Police could not be finalised till 07.03.2019. The relevant portion of the DoPT OM, dated 04.03.2014, reads as under:
"Subject : Inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees -- Instructions thereof
"5. (h) The above principles for determination of inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees would be effective from 27.11.2012, the date of Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7514-7515/2005 in the case of N.R.Parmar Vs. UOI & Ors.
5.(i) The cases of seniority already settled with reference to the applicable interpretation of the term availability, as contained in DoPT OM, dated 7.2.86/3.7.86 may not be reopened."
It is clear that only where seniority has already been settled, prior to 27.11.2012, it need not be reopened. That is not the case here. Hence, the so-called law, as 22 0A/310/00758/2019 invoked by the Applicant, under this DoPT OM, does not apply to the case of the applicant and others in the list.
12. Two major reasons for repeated revision of the seniority list were - (i) issuing the list without giving an opportunity to the affected parties for raising 'their objections, making the Courts/Tribunals hold that such a seniority list was invalid, and, (ii) non-application of the ROTA-QUOTA Rule of seniority, which was raised as far back as 2002, by Thiru. P. Bascaradasse. In respect of the rota- quota aspect, reliance has been placed by the applicant on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of N.R.Parmar. The respondents, in this regard, have taken the plea that this Tribunal had directed them to fix the seniority on the basis of ROTA-QUOTA Rule in accordance with the DOPT instructions, dated 03.07.1986, regarding fixation of seniority in relation to direct recruits and promotees.
13. The department has admitted before the Hon'ble High Court that the seniority list of Sub-Inspectors of Police, issued on 05.03.2013, was invalid as it was issued without following the due procedure, ie., calling for objections of the affected parties. Consequently, the seniority of Sub-Inspectors of Police
- remained unsettled. Objections regarding rota-quota were invited calling the seniority list, dt. 05.03.2013, as tentative seniority list, vide Memo, dt. 22.11.2017, of the Police Department, Government of Puducherry. The Applicant, who was at Sl. No. 3 (Seniority No. 150) requested for confirmation of the list circulated on 22.11.2017. The Department confirmed it on 05.04.2018, after considering the objections/representations received therefor.
23 OA/310/00758/2019
14. As representations in this regard had been pending before the Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry, on the directions of this Tribunal, in MA 238/2018 and OA 545/2018, vide order, dt. 26.04.2018, the Home Department issued a speaking order on 22.02.2019 and, thereafter, the Police Department revised the seniority list of Sub-Inspectors of Police, vide an order, dt. 07.03.2019, wherein | the Applicant in this OA figures at $1. No. 11 (Seniority No. 158). While the OA of the Applicant was pending before the CAT, he also approached the Hon'ble High Court through WP No. 20378 of 2019 / WMP No. 19712 of 2019. The Hon'ble High Court stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the seniority list, . di. 07.03.2019, vide its order, dt. 15.07.2019. The stand of the Government of Puducherry in the matter before the Hon'ble High Court, vide their Court Affidavit, in August, 2019, has been as follows -
"that the case references made by the applicant under grounds in the Writ Petition are prior to the judgment pronounced in the case of Union of India Vs. N. R. Parmer & Ors., and hence the same are not evenly applicable to his claim. I further submit to state that Government of Puducherry is making earnest effort to settle various long pending issues relating to seniority in the Police Department. The issue of seniority of Sub-Inspector of Police and consequently the seniority of Inspector of Police are issues still unsettled, which warrants the adoption of the guidelines issued by the Govt. of India based on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. R. Parmar Case."
15. The next issue is what should his seniority be vis-a-vis other Sub- Inspectors in the batch, both direct recruits and promotees, as the applicant was "recruited under compassionate appointment. In this regard, the instructions contained in OM No. 14014/6/94-Estt. (D), dt. Oct. 9, 1998, of the DoPT, are as follows :-
"15. SENIORITY (a} The inter-se seniority of persons appointed on compassionate grounds may be fixed with reference to their date of appointment. Their interpolation with the direct 24 ©A/310/00758/2019 recruits/promotees may also be made with reference to their dates of appointment without disturbing the inter-se seniority of direct recruits/promotees.
(b) Date of joining by a person appointed on compassionate grounds shall be treated as the date of his/her regular appointment."
As per OM No. 20011/1/2008-Estt.(D), dt. 11.11.2010 -
"A person appointed on compassionate ground in a particular year is placed at the bottom of all the candidates recruited/appointed through direct recruitment, promotion etc., in that year, irrespective of date of joining of candidate on compassionate appointment." (emphasis added) The stand of the Respondent in their order, dt. 22.02.2019, is that "DoPT OM dated 11.11.2010 is not relevant to Thiru. Chintha Kothandaraman, whose case pertains to a period 1991". | Submission by the private respondents regarding appointment of the Applicant in the post of Sub-Inspector, although his father was a Head Constable at the time of his death, is not being considered at this belated stage, as it was not challenged for over a decade since the applicant's appointment as a Sub Inspector of Police. However, these observations regarding his appointment as Sub-Inspector are made in the peculiar circumstances of this case and are not to be construed as a precedent.
16. The exercise conducted by the Police Department is narrated in the Order, dt, 05.04.2018 (Annexure A-20), whereby the Final Seniority list of the Sub-
Inspectors of Police was issued. The relevant paras are extracted below :-
s WHEREAS the above Tentative Seniority list was finalized and Final Seniority list was issued vide Order No. A2/3-3/Estt./Pol/2002, Dated 22.08.2002.
WHEREAS TVL M. Angappan, P. Baskaradass and 8. Kulandaivelu, Sub Inspectors of Police, challenged the above Final Seniority list in the Hon'ble CAT, Madras Bench by filing OA's 452 & 453/2003 and 503/2006 with prayer to quash the seniority list and re-cast it as per rota quota rule.
25 OA/310/00758/2019 --
WHEREAS the Hon'ble CAT, Madras Bench, allowed the OA's by giving direction on 05.03.2010 to the respondents to follow the rota rule and place the applicant at the appropriate place. (emphasis added) WHEREAS in compliance with the above CAT order, a revised seniority list was prepared as per the rota quota rule and issued on 05.03.2013 vide Order No. 1234/Pol/Estt.1(AVA2/2009, WHEREAS the Law Department and DP&AR have conveyed their opinion that while issuing Revised Seniority list as per the Court direction on 05.03.2013 the Department did not follow due procedure i.e., final seniority was directly issued without giving notice to the affected persons, through circulation of a Tentative Seniority list to all concemed. (emphasis added) WHEREAS taking into account the opinion of Law Department and DP&AR, the seniority list of SI which was issued on 05.03.2013, as per the Court direction has been reissued, as Tentative Seniority list and objections were called for regarding rota quota, if any vide Memo. No. 1234/Pol/Estt.(AVA2/2009, Dt. 22.11.2017.
WHEREAS Tvl. K. Murugavel, Nallam Krishnaraya Babu, S. Bascarane and K.L, Veeravallabane have given their objection on the Tentative Seniority list of SI issued on 22.11.2017, that their seniority has to fixed with reference to the date of notification for Direct Recruitment of SI and the person who was recruited under-SC category should be placed below all the General candidates, WHEREAS Thiru, Chintha Kothandaraman has given his representation on the Tentative Seniority list of SI, issued on 22.11.2017, that it should be confirmed without any change. He has also obtained a Court Direction pronounced in the O.A. No. 310/0183/2018 on 12.02.2018, that the respondent has to consider his representation dated 01.02.2018.
WHEREAS Thiru. P. Baskaradass, the applicant in OA No. 453/2003 has also given his objection stating that the order dated 05.03.2013 of the Department, is settled and final with regard to seniority list. Any other counter demand/allegation to reconsider it by any other authority inferior to the Hon'ble CAT, Madras Bench will be malafide and non-sustainable in the eyes of the law. He has therefore requested not to entertain any malicious and factious re-agitation of settled issue of seniority of SI of Police.
WHEREAS the applicability of DoPT's OM dated 14.03.2014 is from 27.11.2012. But, in the present case, the Direct Recruitment happened well before 27.11.2012 i.e., in the year 1991 itself. Similarly, OM dated 11.11.2010 comes into prospective effect and hence is not applicable to the case of Chintha Kothandaraman as he was appointed on 28.02.1991.
AND WHEREAS after examining all the objections raised above in detail, with reference to the rules and procedure prevailing at the time of appointment and in view of the Court Order in OA No. 452 & 453 of 2003 and 503 of 2006 26 0A/310/00758/2019 filed by Thiru. M. Angappan, P. Baskaradass and S. Kulandaivelu, the Department has decided to confirm the Tentative Seniority list issued on 27.11.2017.
NOW THEREFORE the Tentative Seniority list issued on 27.11.2017 is finalised and Final Seniority of 44 Sub Inspectors of Police is hereby issued as per the annexure to this order."
17. In the Annexure, the applicant's name is at Sl. No. 3 (150). Those at SI.
Nos. 1 and 2 are shown to have retired.
18. Thereafter, in MA 238/2018 & OA 545/2018, K. Murugavel, Nallam .Krishnaraya Babu and S. Bascarane challenged the order, dt. 05.04.2018, and sought the following relief :-
"a, To direct the 1 respondent / 2™ respondent, the competent authority to hear the appeal filed by the applicants dated 13.04.2018 / 19.04.2018 against the order of 3% respondent in No. 1234 / Pol / Estt., I(A)/(A2)/2009 dated 05.04.2018, within a time frame;
b. Consequently stay the order of the 3™ respondent in No. 1234/Pol/Estt.1(A)/(A2/2009 dated 05.04.2018, pending disposal of appeal by the competent authority;
C. Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the circumstances of the case including costs and thus render justices."
On 26.04.2018, the Tribunal ordered as follows :-
"5 Keeping in view the limited prayer as also the fact that an appeal of the applicants is pending before the LG, Puducherry, this OA is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the appeal in accordance with law and specifically dealing with the applicability or otherwise of the DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meantime, final seniority list published on 05.04.2018 shall not be operated to the detriment of the applicants." '
19. Again, the Revised Final Seniority list of Sis of Police was issued vide order, dt. 07.03.2019, of the Police Department, which was challenged in OA '360/2019 by the present applicant, who wanted retention of his position as in the Seniority List, dt. 05.04.2018, and this Tribunal held in its order, dt. 20.03.2019, as follows :-
27 0A/310/00758/2019 "7, We have considered the matter, The impugned order refers to the order dt. 05.03.2010 of this Tribunal in OAs 503/2006, 452 & 453/2003 and certain other orders. Clearly, the matter of seniority between the applicant and the private respondents is in dispute and the appeal of the private respondents who were the applicants in OA 545/2018 ought to have been considered objectively with reference to the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the relevant instructions of the DoPT. In as much as the impugned order is silent on how the entire matter was considered, we are of the view that this OA could be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on Annexure A28 representation of the applicant dt. 25.07.2018 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
20. On the direction of the Tribunal, in OA 360/2019, the Under Secretary, Home Department, Govt of Puducherry, issued order, dt. 02.05.2019, which is _ reproduced below :-
" ORDER Sub: Home (Police), insepresentation submitted by Shri. Chinta Kodanda Ram, Inspector of Police, holding Current Duties Charges of Superintendent of Police (North) towards the Seniority List of Sub-Inspector of Police - Reg.
Ref: 1. Representation dated 25.07.2018 of Shri. Chinta Kodandaram, SP (North)-CDC.
2, Oral Order, dt. 20.03.2019 on O.A No. 310/00360/2019 by the Hon'ble CAT, Chennai Bench. ,
-: 000 t-
WHEREAS, the inter-se seniority list between promotees and direct recruits, including Shri. Chinta Kodanda Ram, Inspector of Police, covering the years 1989 and 1991s, was finalized, in terms of DoPT O.M. dt 04.03.2014 and the Apex Court judgment in NR Parmer case and with the approval of Competent Authority, the same was communicated to the Police Department vide order dt. 22.02.2019 of the- Home Department, Puducherry. The Police Department has, subsequently, Issued the revised seniority list of Sub-Inspector of Police vide Order No, 1234/Pol/Estt.J(AVA2/2009, dt. 07.03.2019.
AND WHEREAS, In 0.A No. 310/00360/2019 filed before the Hon'ble CAT, Chennai Bench, Shri. Chinta Kodanda Ram, Inspector of Police, has sought for the following relief:-
"To call for the records of the 3rd respondent made in No. 1234/Pol/Est. U(AWA2/2009, dt.07.03.2019 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent to recast the seniority list of Sub-Inspectors and place the applicant about the respondents 4 to IJ and to pass such further or other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem jit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
28 OA/310/00758/2019 The Hon'ble CAT, Chennai Bench vide oral order, dt. 20.3.2019 and has disposed the O.A. at the admission stage with the directions that .. we are of the view that this OA could be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on Annexure A28, ie. representation of the applicant dated 25.07.2018, within a period of one month from the receipt of a copy of this order."
03. AND WHEREAS, in the said representation dt. 25.07.2018, Shri. Chinta Kodanda Ram, Inspector of Police has requested not to disturb his seniority position (@ Seniority No. 150) in the final seniority list of Sub-inspector issued on 05.04.2018. The primary objection of Shri. Chinta Kodanda Ram is that the DoPT O.M dt. dt.04.03.2014 on the subject of inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees based on the N.R. Parmar Vs Union of India and Ors, is not applicable to the instant case of seniority list, as the same was already a settled one and could not reopened.
04. AND WHEREAS, the Hon'ble CAT has pronounced an order dated 9.12.2004 on O.A. No.452 & 453 of 2003, by setting aside the Seniority List of Sub-Inspector of Police dt. 22.08.2002 issued by the Police Department, Puducherry. The Hon'ble CAT subsequently confirmed its order, once again on 05.03.2010 In MA 100/2007 and 237/2007 in O.A. No.503 of 2006 and further directed to issue a revised seniority list by following due procedures. In pursuance to the above CAT orders dt. 09.12.2004 and 05.03.2010, the Inspector General of Police, Puducherry issued a revised seniority vide order 05.03.2013. However, when the revised seniority list was finalized, it was done without following due procedures (i.e calling for objections, etc.), as directed by Hon'ble Court vide dated 09.12.2004 and 05.03.2010. It is therefore clear that the issue of finalizing of Seniority of Sub-Inspector of Police thus remained unsettled and was so till the DoPT notification dt. 04.03.2014,
05. AND WHEREAS, the DOPT O.M. dated 04.03.2014 was issued in the wake of Apex Court order in Union of India & Ors vs. N.R. Parmar & Ors, dated 27.11.2012. In fact, the Apex Court Order has provided clarity on the rota quota system in the light of policy followed by DoPT. The OM. dt.04.03.2014 makes it clear that if the seniority was unsettled / yet to be finalized even if a person stands recruited before the date of OM, it will attract the OM dated 04.3.2014. Therefore, the principles laid down in DOPT O.M. dated 04.3.2014 is squarely applicable to the instant case, as it is unsettled.
06. AND WHEREAS, the Supreme Court order dated 3.7.2013 in Civil Appeal Nos.1712-1713 of 2002 P. Sudhakar Rao & ors. Vs U. Govinda Rao & ors has been furnished by Shri. Chintha Kodanda Ram to support his claim. The said order dt. 03.07.2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable in this case, as it does not relate to rota quota system / inter-se seniority between Direct Recruitment and the promotees and the DoPT O.M. dated 04.03.2014. Since the issue here relates to fixing inter-se seniority between Direct Recruitment and Promotees as per rota quota system, the Apex Court judgment in the NR Parmer case and the DOPT O.M. dt. 04.03.2014 is squarely applicable. The Compassionate appointment is made against Direct Recruit vacancies. As the . father of Shri. Chintha Kodanda Ram died on 14.02.1991 and he got his appointment order, on compassionate grounds and joined duty on 28.02.1991, his seniority cannot be fixed with reference to the year earlier to 1991 and his WO) 21, pee id : 29 OA/310/00758/2019 seniority has to be fixed with reference to year 1991, when cause for compassionate appointment arose and he joined.
07. NOW THEREFORE, in compliance to the Hon'ble CAT order dt.20.03.2019, the representation, dt.25.07.2018, of Shri. Chinta Kodanda Ram, Inspector of Police, requesting not to disturb his seniority has been carefully 'considered and the same could not be acceded to and accordingly, his above representation is disposed of."
In its order, dt. 15.07.2019, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, in WP No. 20378 of 2018 and WMP No. 19712 of 2019, has observed as follows :-
* 22.
"20. We ate prima facie of the view that the settled seniority has been given a go-by and in a very light manner, the seniority was revised. This aspect was not considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal while rejecting the request made by the petitioner for staying the seniority list dated 07.03.2019.
21. We stay all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned final seniority list dated 07.03.2019 issued by the Superintendent, Head Quarters, Puducherry until further orders."
While disposing of the WP to the WMP, on 21.11.2019, the Hon'ble High Court has ordered as follows :-
23.
in Civil Appeal Nos. 8833-8835 of 2019 and batch, in the case of K.Meghachandra Singh & Ors Vs. Ningam Siro & Ors, as referred to by the Hon'ble High Court, in the preceding para, needs to be referred to. The relevant "(28) Therefore, this Court deem it proper to maintain the impugned interim order passed by the 1 respondent / Tribunal and to require the 1° respondent / Tribunal to take into consideration the factual aspect as well as the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CA.Nos. 8833 to 8835/2019 dated 19.11.2019 and give a disposal at an early date, (29) In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of and the impugned interim order granted by the 1* respondent Tribunal dated 28.06.2019 shall continue till the disposal of the main Original Application. The Ist respondent / Tribunal is required to accord priority and give a disposal to the main OA.No.310/00758/2019 on or before February 2020. It is made clear that the observations made heréin are only for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition and this Court has not ventured into the merits of the case projected by the rival parties. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed."
Before proceeding further, the Supreme Court judgment, dt. 19.11.2019, ms 30 OA/3 10/00758/201 9 portions of the judgment, are extracted below :-
"36. After the judgment in N.R. Parmar (Supra) was delivered, the Union of India issued the Office Memorandum on 04.03.2014 defining the recruitment year to be the year of initiating the recruitment process against the vacancy year and that the rotation of quota, would continue to operate for determination of inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees, .......eee Significantly, the said OM specifically provided that appointments/promotions made before the issue of this OM will not be covered by this OM. The seniority already fixed as per existing rules followed earlier in the State prior to the issue of this OM may not be reopened." It was also specifically stated therein that "this OM will come into effect from 01.01.2018 with the publication in the Gazeite.
37. From above, it is not only apparent that the above OM was only to be given prospective effect from 1.1.2018 but it contains an express acknowledgement that this was not the position prior to the issuance of the OM and that a different Rule was followed earlier in the State. The conclusion is, therefore, inevitable that at least prior to 1.1.2018, direct recruits cannot claim that their seniority should be reckoned from the date of initiation of recruitment proceedings and not from the date of actual appointment.
aaeeenes 40, .....under Service Jurisprudence, seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbent is yet to be bore in the cadre. In our considered opinion, the law on the issue is correctly declared in J.C. Patnaik (Supra) and consequently we disapprove the norms on assessment of inter-se seniority, suggested in N. R. Parmar (Supra). Accordingly, the decision in N.R. Parmar is overruled. However, it is made clear that this decision will not affect the inter-se seniority already based on N.R. Parmar and the same is protected. This decision will apply prospectively except where seniority is to be fixed under the relevant Rules from the date of vacancy/the date of advertisement. (emphasis added)"
24. Further, in its judgment, dt. Dec. 14, 2022, cited by the Respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the Civil Appeal No. ...... of 2022 in SLP (C) No.
-16161 of 2018, has made significant observations as follows :-
"39. In any event, the decision in the case of K. Meghachandra has a prospective operation. The seniority list of 7th September 2016 was made in terms of the decision in the case of N. R. Parmar. 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:
i, 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 Coutindo and another binding decision of a Coordinate Bench in the case of M. 34 OA/310/00758/2019 Subba Reddy were not placed for consideration before the Bench which decided the case of K. Meghachandra;
ii. 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 adverlisement, In this case, as on the date when the caye of NLR. Parmar was decided, there was no rule which required that the inter-se- 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. --........A8 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."
25. The applicant's concern is that his "settled" seniority is being disturbed. The matter can attain finality only if a valid list is issued and upheld on account of due observance of the principles of natural justice as well as the rules and law in this respect. Rules laid down by the DoPT and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court are the available guiding posts for arriving at an objective "decision in the matter. Whether the Rota-Quota Rule was followed, whether seniority is based on the date of initiation of the process of recruitment as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court order in the case of N. R. Parmar, and incorporated by the DoPT, in its OM, dt. 4 March, 2014, and whether the objections of the affected parties were called for, duly considered and disposed of, before fixing 32 OA/310/80758/2019 the seniority, these are the crucial issues and constitute the litmus test in the matter. This was made clear by the Tribunal as early as 09.12.2004, while disposing of OAs 452 & 453 of 2003 (Annexure A-7).
26. The applicant was appointed in 1991 while the other direct recruits were waiting for interview call, having cleared their written exams, against the vacancies which had been notified in the year 1989. The applicant would like to retain his earlier seniority, on the basis of the date of his appointment vis-a-vis that of others, who were appointed in the same year, ie., 1991, after completion of the recruitment/promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police.
27. DoPT OM, dt. 04.03.2014, duly incorporating the decision in the N.R.Parmar case, is applicable in respect of fixing of seniority and application of rota quota formula in the present matter. The Government of Puducherry and _the respondent department have been directed by this Tribunal for rectifying the seniority list of Sub-Inspectors, wherever any lapse was noticed. That the process for direct recruitment as Sub-Inspector and promotion in the department from the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector to that of Sub-Inspector was stated prior to 1991 is quite obvious. Therefore, having availed of the appointment as Sub-Inspector in the year 1991, the applicant cannot claim the benefit of the date of appointment in respect of seniority, above those who have come through 'detailed process of recruitment or promotion. Hence, his request for setting aside the final seniority list, dt. 07.03.2019, and the order, dt. 02.05.2019, issued by 4" and the 2™ respondents, respectively, cannot be acceded to. The order, dt.
07.03.2019 is clearly based on detailed grounds made out in order, dt.
*, ae 33 OA/310/00758/2019 0 22.02.2019, which was issued while dealing with the issues raised by the applicant and private respondents.
28. In view of the above, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
hiteedinte mrat infrailasols Wind ode Get cova nhadGian saw bueR tah A oie 44ii4