Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Deepak Kr Xaxa vs Police on 21 February, 2024
an 1 0.A. 351/00833/2023 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA (CIRCUIT AT PORT BLAIR) No. O.A. 351/00833/2023 Heard on: 08.02.2024 Date of order: Qy-2.2024 Present: Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh Y. Bhairavia, Judicial Member Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member 1. Shri Deepak Kumar Xaxa, Son of Late Sebastian Xaxa, Aged about 39 years, Presently working Sub as Inspector (Executive), Posted at PS Billy Ground, North & Middle Andaman Dist., Resident of Austinabad, South Andaman, Port Blair 744103, Mobile No. 9476051973 and Email ED: [email protected] 2. Shri Devanand Pathak, S/o Shri S.N. Pathak, Aged about 33 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at PS Ograbanch, South Andaman, Dist. Resident of Police Line, South Andaman, Port Blair 744103. 3. Shri Abhishekh Menon, S/o Shri E.D. Girishankar, Aged about 37 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at PTS, Port Blair, Resident of Garacharma, Port Blair-744105. 4, Shri Somen Kumar Halder, S/o Shri Sudhangshu Haldar, Aged about 40 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at PS Hut Bay, South Andaman Dist., Resident of Nabagram, North & Middle Andaman Dist., Diglipur - 744202. 2 0.A. 351/00833/2023 3. Shri Shaji Mathew, S/o Late V.T. Mathew, Aged about 40 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at PS CCS, Resident of Austinabad, Port Blair, South Andaman District. 6. Shri Mohan Rao, S/o Shri Umapati, Aged about 35 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at PS Nancowrie, Resident of Dairy Farm, Port Blair, South Andaman District. 7. Shri Ashok Kumar Bhagel, S/o Shri B.R. Bhagel, Aged about 34 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at SP(D), North & Middle Andaman, Resident of Austinabad, Port Blair, South Andaman District. 8. Shri Gaurav Banerjee, S/o Shri Dilip Banerjee, Aged about 36 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at PS Humfregunij, Resident of Shadipur, Port Blair, South Andaman District. 9. Shri M.V. Shiju Kumar, S/o Late G. Madhusudhan Nair, Aged about 40 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at PS Diglipur, Resident of Shadipur, Port Blair, South Andaman District. 10. Shri Dinesh Meena, S/o Shri R.L. Meena, Aged about 37 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), 3 0.A. 351/00833/2023 Posted at PS Mayabunder, Resident of Kundan Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 11. Shri K.P. Abdul Aziz, S/o Shri P.K. Abdul Razak, Aged about 34 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at CID Unit, Port Blair, Resident of Austinabad, Port Blair, South Andaman District. 12. Shri P.C, Manickam, 8/o Shri P.Chinnaiah, Aged about 43 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at CID Unit, Port Blair, Resident of Gurudwara Lane, Port Blair, South Andaman District. 13. Shri P.R Shain Nair, S/o Late N.P. Nair, Aged about 41 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at CID Unit, Port Blair, Resident of Calicut, Port Blair, South Andaman District. 14. Shri Subramani, S/o Late C. Chinnaiah, Aged about 41 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at SP (D), South Andaman, Resident of Guptapara, South Andaman District. 15. Shri Shibendra Nath Halder, S/o Late Sakti Pada Halder, Aged about 36 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), 4 O0.A. 351/00833/2023 Posted at ACU, Port Blair, Resident of Austinabad, Port Blair, South Andaman District. 16. Shri Vinit Kumar Maurya, S/o Shri B.P. Maurya, Aged about 35 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at PS CCS, Resident of Mahavir Nagar, Prothrapur, Port Blair, South Andaman District. 17. Shri P. Jeevan, S/o Shri P. Balaiah, Aged about 34 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at PS Aberdeen, Resident of Haddo, Port Blair, South Andaman District. 18. Shri J, Rama Krishna, S/o Shri J. Madhav Rao, Aged about 39 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at PS Car Nicobar, Resident of Bhatu Basti, Port Blair, South Andaman District. 19, Shri P.R. Pradeep Kumar, S/o Late P.R. Radha Krishna, Aged about 43 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at P.S. Aberdeen, Resident of Dundus Point, Port Blair, South Andaman District. 20. Shri Parvesh, S/o Shri Dev Das, Aged about 36 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at PS CCS, Resident of Lamba Line, Port Blair, 21 22. 23. 24, 25. South Andaman District. . Shri Manoj Lal, S/o Shri Rajender Lal, Aged about 36 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at PTS, Port Blait, Resident of Deen Street, Port Blair, South Andaman District. Shri $.S.M Anish Ibrahim, S/o Shri S.S.M. Mohd. Ibrahim, Aged about 35 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at PS Rangat, Resident of Austinabad, Port Blair, South Andaman District Shri Randhir Singh, S/o Shri Ranjit Singh, Aged about 36 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at PS Chatham, Resident of New Pahargaon, Port Blair, South Andaman District. Shri Sudeep Kumar Goldar, S/o Late S.C. Goldar, Aged about 41 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at SP (D), Car Nicobar, Resident of Delanipur, Port Blair, South Andaman District. Shri R. Dhiraj Kishen, S/o Shri Ram Kishen, Aged about 42 years, Presently working as Sub Inspector (Executive), Posted at PS Mayabunder, Resident of Dollygunj, Port Blair, South Andaman District. 0.A. 351/00833/2023 .... Applicants 6 0.A. 351/00833/2023 - VERSUS--- 1. UNION OF INDIA, Service through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Jaisalmer House, 26, Man Singh Road, New Delhi-110 011. 2. THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Raj Niwas, Port Blair; 3. ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION, Secretariat, Port Blair, through the Chief Secretary, A &N Administration, Port Blair- 744101; 4. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Secretariat, Port Blair-744101; 5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Police Head Quarters, Port Blair-744101; .. Respondents For the Applicant: Mr. T. D' Cruz, Counsel For the Respondents: Dr. D. Chowdhury, Counsel ORDER
Per Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member:
The applicants have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
(A) An Order be passed quashing the impugned confirmed seniority list of Sub Inspectors (Executive) of A&N Police being F. No. DGP/Estt/Seniority-
$1/2016-17/3467 dated 11.07.2019 (Annexure A-11) and memo dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure A-14) being contrary to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of N.R. Parmar and DOPT OM dated 04.03.2014.
(B) An order be passed directing the respondent No. 5 to recast the seniority list afresh by placing the applicant No. 1, Shri Deepak Kumar Xaxa above Shri Abdul Manaf and so on, on the basis of principle laid down by the 7 0.A. 351/00833/2023 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in N. R. Parmar Case and DOPT OM dated 04.03.2014 without any further delay.
(C) Any such order or orders be passed and or direction or directions be given as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.
(D) Cost and incidentals to this application."
2. The facts are as under:-
2.1. Total 67 posts of Sub Inspector (Executive) were lying vacant as on 28/09/2010. Out of which, 13 vacancies were backlog vacancies for Direct --
Recruitment and the remaining 54 vacancies were required to be filled up in terms of draft Recruitment Rules (RR) 2010.
2.2. A Departmental Promotion Committee met on 28/09/2010 to consider the names of A.S.Is (Executive) for promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector (Executive).
However, none of the A.S.Is having the requisite qualifying service were eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector (Executive).
2.3. Subsequently, after obtaining the necessary relaxation from Lieutenant Governor, 17 ASIs were promoted to the post of SIs on the basis of recommendation of the DPC held on 11.6.2012.
2.4. On the basis of the notified Recruitment Rules dated 29/08/2011, 56 posts were notified for direct recruitment and published in the local newspaper on 16/03/2012.
2.5. Challenging the said vacancy notification dated 16/03/2012, an Original Application being O.A. No. 32/AN/2012 - (Shri Abdul Manaf & others Vs- Union of India & others) was filed before the Hon'ble C.A.T of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair by Shri Abdul Manaf & others.
2.6. Another Original Application being O.A. No. 45/AN/2012 - (Shri K.A. Karthikeyan & others -Vs- Union of India & others) was also filed before this Tribunal.
2.7. The Original Application filed by Shri Karthikeyan & others being O.A No. 45/AN/2012 - (Sbri K.A. Karthikeyan & others-Vs- Union of India & others) was dismissed by this Tribunal on 17/12/2012, The Original Application filed by Shri 8 0.A. 351/00833/2023 Abdul Manaf & others being O.A. No. 32/AN/2012 was also dismissed by this Tribunal vide Order dated 05/03/2013. | 2.8, Challenging the said Orders dated 17/12/2012 and 05/03/2013, passed by this Tribunal, two separate Writ Petitions being WPCT No. 44-(Shri K.A Kartikeyan & Ors. -Vs- Union of India & others) and WPCT No. 127 of 2013-(Shri Abdul Manaf- Vs- Union of India & others) were filed before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta (Circuit at Port Blair).
2.9. The Writ Petitions were disposed of by a common judgment/order dated 15/07/2013 directing as under:-
Md Therefore, the orders impugned stand modified. The recommendations of the departmental promotion committee ignoring the candidature of these petitioners, on the ground not having six years regular service in the grade, is set aside.
XXXXXXXXXK The administration is, therefore, directed to take steps for filling up the posts of Sub Inspector (Executive), in accordance with law expeditiously."
2.10. After the common judgment dated 15/07/2013, another 18 ASIs were promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector (Executive) on 19/11/2013.
2.11. The list of selected candidates by direct recruitment of Sub Inspectors (Executive) was also published by decreasing the number of vacancy from 56 to 45 on 12/10/2013 and they were given appointment in the year 2014 vide Order dated 31/05/2014.
2.12. A provisional seniority list of SIs was published by the respondents on 23.12.2016. ° 2.13. The applicant, Deepak Kumar Xaxa and 11 others (All Sub Inspectors/ Executive) made a representation against the said provisional seniority list on 16/04/2019 with the request to consider their inter se seniority by enclosing a copy of Office Memorandum dated 03/03/2008 of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & pensions, Department of Personnel & Training.
2.14. Their representation was rejected vide Memorandum dated 10/07/2019.
\ The provisional seniority list was confirmed vide list dated 11/07/2019.
i) 0.A. 351/00833/2023 2.16. The applicants again submitted their representations on 21/10/2022 against the confirmed Seniority List dated 11/07/2019 by citing the Office Memorandum No. 2001 1/1/2012-Estt. (D) dated 04/03/2014 in support of their claim. 2.17, The said representations were rejected in view of the DoP&T O.M No. 20011/2/2019-Estt.(D) dated 13/08/2021, which was issued in pursuance of the judgment dated 19/11/2019, passed by the larger bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8833-35/2019-( K. Megachandra Singh & others -Vs- Ningam Siro & others).
2.18. Challenging the confirmed Seniority list dated 11/07/2019 and Memo dated 05/01/2023, the applicants herein have preferred the instant Original Application.
3. Ld. Counsel for the applicants submits that even though the applicants were appointed in 2014, their recruitment year was 2012 as the vacancy notice was published in 2012. Their appointment was delayed because of litigation. Some of the departmental candidates, who had been promoted to the posts of Sub-Inspectors on adhoc basis in 2012, approached the Tribunal against the vacancy notice dated 16.3.2012 for direct recruitment. These O.A.s with Nos. 32/AN/2012 and 45/AN/2012 were dismissed by the Tribunal vide orders dated 5.3.2013 and 17.12.2012 respectively. The applicants in these O.A.s then moved the Hon'ble High Court (Circuit at Port Blair) by filing WPCT Nos. 44 of 2013 and 127 of 2013.
4, By a common judgment in the two WPCTs, Hon'ble High Court (Circuit at Port Blair) modified the Tribunal's order, inter alia, directing the respondents vide its order dated 15.7.2013 to proceed with the recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspectors as per law. Respondents then published the results of the selection on 12.10.2013 and appointed the direct recruits to the post of Sub-Inspectors on 31.5.2014.
5. In the meantime, another group of ASIs were promoted to the post of SIs on adhoc basis on 19.11.2013. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that in the provisional seniority list published by the respondents all such promotee SIs who were promoted on adhoc basis have been placed above the applicants.
\e 10 0.A. 351/00833/2023
6. Ld. Counsel submits that since all the promotees were adhoc appointees, they cannot claim seniority as they were not regularized. He further submits that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2012) 13 SCC 340 in the case of N.R. Parmar v. Union of India & ors. followed by the DoP&T O.M. dated 4.3.2014, seniority of direct recruits was to be determined with reference to the recruitment year which is 2012 in the case of the applicants herein and the respondents were wrong in placing them below the adhoc promotee SIs.
Ld. Counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants made a representation to the authorities on 16.4.2019 pointing out the anomalies in the seniority list. The said representation was rejected by the respondents and the final seniority list was published on 11.7.2019 in which the applicants continued to be placed below the adhoc promotees who were appointed in 2012 and 2013. While rejecting the representation of the applicants, the respondents cited DoP&T O.M. dated 3.3.2008 in support of their decision to determine the seniority of an employee on the basis of his/her date of appointment.
7. Ld. Counsel for the applicants submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the said O.M. dated 3.3.2008 and DoP&T O.M. dated 4.3.2014 and had declared the O.M. of 2008 as non est. Therefore, the respondents could not rely on the DoP&T O.M. dated 3.3.2008 while determining the seniority of the applicants in 2016.
Ld. Counsel further submits that even the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Megachandra Singh (supra) and the DoP&T O.M. dated 13.8.2021 following this judgment specifically state that for cases where the recruitment process has been initiated before 19.11.2009, the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees shall be governed by the provisions of DoP&T O.M. dated 07.02.1986/03.07.1986 read with O.M. dated 4.3.2014. Applicants made another representation on 21.10.2022 for reconsideration of their seniority in the light of O.M. of 4.3.2014. This representation has also been rejected by the respondents on 5.1.2023 on the ground that as the seniority of the applicants were already settled with reference to DoP&T O.M.s of 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986, , and as per the DoP&T O.M. dated 13.8.2021, the matter could not be reopened.
11 0.A. 351/00833/2023
8. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents relying on the reply filed by the respondents submits that the provisional seniority list published on 23.12.2016 made it clear that any objection to the said list was to be filed within 30 days of its publication. The applicants did not avail of the window of opportunity in time and have thereby forfeited any right to agitate against the provisional seniority list. The applicants represented against the seniority list for the first time on 16.4.2019. In the said representation, they themselves relied on DoP&T O.M. dated 3.3.2008. Even though the representation was filed long after the due date, the administration replied to the said representation and rejected it on the basis of the DoP&T O.M. dated 3.3.2008. Ld. Counsel for the respondents further submits that subsequently DoP&T's O.M. of 13.8.2021 stipulated that the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees already decided prior to 19.11.2019 will not be disturbed. Since the seniority of the applicants was already decided before 19.11.2019, the question of recasting the same does not arise.
9. Applicants in their rejoinder state that admittedly there was a delay in filing the representation against the provisional seniority list on their part, but this delay cannot be the excuse for violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by the authorities.
9.1. In the rejoinder, the applicants allege that the authorities have made a false statement that the promotee SIs were regularized in the grade from the dates of their adhoc promotion to the post of SIs.
9.2. Ld. Counsel for the applicants cites the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court (Circuit at Port Blair) in WPCT No. 44 of 2013 and 127 of 2013 dated 15.7.2013 in which it was categorically observed that "no right has yet accrued on persons who were appointed on adhoc basis" and that in view of this observation, the authorities cannot claim that the adhoc appointees were senior to the direct recruits on the basis of their appointment as SIs on adhoc basis.
10. Heard the parties. Perused material on record, 12 O.A. 351/00833/2023
11. Applicants and respondents are in agreement that the matter pertains to vacancy year 2010. Private respondents were promoted on adhoc basis against these vacancies on 11% June, 2012 and on 19.11.2013. Although a DPC was held on 28.9.2010 to consider the names of ASIs for promotion to the post of SIs, none of the candidates were considered eligible for promotion. Fresh DPCs were held on 11.6.2012 and on 12.11.2013 following which 17 ASIs were promoted on 11.6.2012 on ad hoc basis and 18 ASIs were promoted on 19.11.2013 on officiating basis respectively (R-5 and R-9 refer).
12, Vacancy notice for recruitment of Direct Recruits was issued on 16.3.2012. Owing to pendency of litigation in respect of this notice, recruitment of direct recruits was delayed. After the issue attained finality following the common judgment of Hon'ble High Court (Circuit at Port Blair) in WPCT. 44 of 2013 and WPCT No. 127 of 2013, results of the selection was published on 12.10.2013 and 45 direct recruits were appointed as SIs on 31.5.2014,
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of N.R. Paramar (supra) ruled on 27.11.2012 that the inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees will be determined with reference to their recruitment year. This judgment specifically quashed the DoPT OM dated 03.03.2009 ab initio which had clarified that inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees will be determined on the basis of their date of appointment. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.R. Parmar (supra), the DoPT issued an OM on 04.03.2014 on the subject. Relevant parts of the OM are extracted below:-
"3. The matier has been examined in pursuance of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment on 27.11.2012, In Civil Appeal No, 7514-7515/2005 in the case of N.R. Parmar vs. UOI & Ors in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs and it has been decided, that the manner of determination of Inter-se-seniority of direct recruits and promotes would be as under:
(a) DOPT OM No. 20011/1/2006-Estt. (D) dated 3.3.2008 is treated as non-
existent/withdrawn ab initio;
(b) The retation of quota based on the available direct recruits and promotees appointed against the vacancies of a Recruitment year, as provided in DOPT O.M. dated 7.2.1986/3.7.1986, would continue to operate for determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees;
13 O0.A. 351/00833/2023 (¢) The available direct recruits and promotees, for assignment of inter se seniority, would refer to the direct recruits and promotees who are appointed against the vacancies of a Recruitment Year.
(@) Recruitment Year would be the year of initiating the recruitment process against a vacancy year;
¢) Initiation of recruitment process against a vacancy year would be the date of sending of requisition for filling up of vacancies to the recruiting agency in the case of direct recruits; in the case of promotees the date on which a proposal, complete in all respects, is sent to UPSC/Chairman-DPC for convening of DPC to fill up the vacancies through promotion would be the relevant date.
a) The initiation of recruitment process for any of the modes viz. direct recruitment of promotion would be deemed to be the initiation of recruitment process for the other mode as well;
g) Carry forward of vacancies against direct recruitment of promotion quota would be determined from the appointments made against the first attempt for Jjilling up of the vacancies for a Recruitment Year;
(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"
Since the seniority list was first published on 23.12.2016, as per para 5 (h) above, seniority of the applicants vis. a. vis. the promotees should have been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in the OM dated 04.03.2014 which in para 5 (a) has specifically declared the OM of 03.03.2008 as non-existent ab initio. Therefore, the respondents' reliance on the OM dated 03.03.2008 while rejecting the representation of the applicants dated 16.4.2019 is wrong and determination of seniority on the basis of OM of 03.03.2009 is unlawful.
14. The OM quoted above has defined the recruitment year for direct recruits as the date of sending of requisition for filling up of vacancies to the recruiting agency. In the instant case, the recruitment was done by the respondents themselves. Therefore, the date of publication of vacancy notice in the newspaper will be taken as the recruitment year. Thus, it is held that the recruitment year for the applicants herein is 2012.
15. In the case of promotees, the date on which a proposal is sent to UPSC/Chairman- DPC for convening of the DPC to fill up the vacancies would be the relevant date. In the instant case, there is no indication in the pleadings as to the date on which such proposal, 14 0.A. 351/00833/2023 complete in all respect, was sent to the Chairman-DPC for convening of the DPC. DPC for adhoc promotion was, however, held on 11.6.2012 and adhoc promotion to 17 departmental candidates was granted with effect from the same date. It stands to reason that the proposal for convening the DPC was sent shortly before 11.6.2012. Also as per Para 5(f) quoted above, the initiation of recruitment process for any of the modes viz. direct recruitment or promotion would be deemed to be the initiation of recruitment process for the other mode as well. In the instant case, the direct recruits i.e. the applicants and the promotees were recruited against vacancy year 2010. Since the process of direct recruitment was initiated with the publication of the employment notice on 16.3.2012, the recruitment of promotees in question is also deemed to have commenced from the same date. Consequently, the recruitment year for these promotees is also 2012.
16. Having determined that the recruitment year for both the direct recruits appointed on 31.05 .2014 and the promotees appointed as S.I.s in 2012 and 2013 is 2012, it follows that their inter-se seniority should follow the provision in para 5(b) of the DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014 quoted above. While arriving at this decision, we have taken note of the respondents' affirmation in their affidavit in reply to the O.A, that the appointments of the promote officers were regularized from the date of their appointment.
17. We agree with the averment of the applicants that delay in making the representation against the unlawful act on the part of the respondents cannot impart legitimacy to such act. Respondents, being a responsible government entity, should have followed the law on their own and delay in filing representation against the seniority list can, in no way, condone the mistake committed by them.
18. Adverting to the OM of 13.08.2021 following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Meghachandra Singh (supra), we take note of para 7(ii) of the said OM which is quoted below:-
"7. Based on the above, it has been decided to modify the instructions relating to determination of inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits as under:
XXXXXXK 15 0.A. 351/00833/2023 (ii} As the Order dated 19.11.2079 is prospective, cases of inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, already decided in terms of O.M. No. 20071/1/2012-Estt. (D) dated 4,3.2014, shall not be disturbed, i.e. old cases are not to be reopened."
19. We have already concluded that the inter-se seniority of the direct recruits and promotees in the instant case should have been determined in accordance with the provisions of OM of 04.03.2014. Provisional seniority list in this case was published on 23.12.2016 and the final list was published on 11.07.2019, i.e. before the pronouncement of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Meghachandra Singh (supra) and the DoPT OM of 13.08.2021. Had the seniority been determined in terms of the DoPT OM of 04.03.2014, it could not be disturbed as per para 7 (ii) of the OM of 13" August, 2021 quoted above.
20. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the respondents are in error in determining the inter-s¢ seniority of the applicants' vis. a vis. the promotees on the basis of date of appointment instead of with reference to the recruitment year. Provisional seniority list dated 23.11.2016 and the impugned final seniority list dated 11.07.2019 are accordingly quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to recast the inter-se seniority of the applicants and the promotee 8.Ls in accordance with the provisions of the DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014 within a period of 4 months from the date of this order.
21. The O.A. is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(Suchitio''Kumar Das) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia) Administrative Member Judicial Member Sp