Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Jayadrata Hazra vs National Library on 1 November, 2025
1 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
Date of Hearing : 21.08.2025
Date of Order: 01.11.2025
Coram : Hon'ble Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
In the matter of :
O.A. 350/538/2023
M.A. 350/246/2024
Jayabrata Hazra, S/o Late Chinmoy Hazra, aged about 41 years,
at present working as Library Clerk (Mending), under the
control of Director General, National Library, Belvedere,
Alipore, Kolkata, at present residing at 265, Becharam
Chatterjee Road, Kolkata - 700061. E mail :
[email protected] ; Mobile No. +918697785201
.............Applicant
-versus-
1. Union of India through Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of
Culture, Library Section, 'C' Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi -
110115.
2. Director, Govt. of India, Ministry of Culture, Library Section,
'C' Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110115.
3. Director General, National Library, Belvedere, Alipore,
Kolkata - 700027.
4. Library Information Officer & Head of Office, National
Library, Belvedere, Alipore, Kolkata - 700027.
5. Asstt. Library Information Officer and Head of Office,
National Library, Belvedere, Alipore, Kolkata - 700027.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone=
Dhrubajyoti banerjee
90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
6. Staff Selection Commission, through its Chairman, Block
No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
...... Respondents
7. Shri A. Arumugam, Library Clerk (Mending) service through
the Director General, National Library, Belvedere, Alipore,
Kolkata - 700027.
...... P. Respondent
O.A. 350/2027/2021
Jayabrata Hazra, S/o Late Chinmoy Hazra, aged about 39 years,
at present working as Library Clerk (Mending), under the
control of Director General, National Library, Belvedere,
Alipore, Kolkata, at present residing at 265, Becharam
Chatterjee Road, Kolkata - 700061.
.............Applicant
-versus-
1. Union of India through Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of
Culture, Library Section, 'C' Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi -
110115.
2. Director, Govt. of India, Ministry of Culture, Library Section,
'C' Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110115.
3. Director General, National Library, Belvedere, Alipore,
Kolkata - 700027.
4. Library Information Officer & Head of Office, National
Library, Belvedere, Alipore, Kolkata - 700027.
5. Staff Selection Commission, through its Chairman, Block
No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone=
Dhrubajyoti banerjee
90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
3 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
6. Dy. Director, Staff Selection Commission (Eastern Region),
Nizam Palace, 1st M.S.O. Building (8th Floor), 234/4, A.J.C. Bose
Road, Kolkata - 700020.
...... Respondents
7. Shri A. Arumugam, Library Clerk (Mending) service through
the Director General, National Library, Belvedere, Alipore,
Kolkata - 700027.
...... P. Respondent
For the Applicant : Mr. C. Sinha (Counsel)
For the Respondents : Ms. E. Banerjee, Mr. B. Bhushan (Counsel)
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :
1. Issues involved in O.A No. 350/2027/2021 and O.A No. 350/538/2023 being closely related, the two O.As have been heard together and are disposed of by the following common order.
2. The applicant filed O.A No. 350/2027/2021 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief(s):
"a) To set aside and quash impugned seniority list dated 01.09.2019 for the post of Library Clerk (G.C.S. Group 'C') (Non-Ministerial) in P.B.-I with G.P. Rs. 1900/- with regard to position of P. Respondent and applicant is concerned.
b) To set aside and quash impugned letter No. ADM/S-I (49)/8859 dated 25.02.2020 issued by the ALIO and AO In-charge.
c) To direct the respondents to place the applicant at Sl. No. 1 and the P. Respondent at Sl. No. 2 of Seniority List dated 01.09.2019 for the post of Library Clerk (G.C.S. Group 'C') (Non-Ministerial) in P.B.-I with G.P. Rs.
1900/-.
d) Any other order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper."
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
3. The applicant filed O.A No. 350/538/2023 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief(s):
"a) To set aside and quash impugned Office Order No. 1065 of 2022-
2023 dated 31.03.2023 issued by the ALIO and Head of Office, National Library.
b) To direct the respondents to revert the P. Respondent to the post of Library Clerk (Mending), National Library, Kolkata with immediate effect.
c) Any other order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper."
4. Facts of the cases as narrated by the applicant are as follows:
Consequent upon qualifying the interview conducted by the Staff Selection Commission for the post of Library Clerk (Mending) in scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- in the National Library, applicant was nominated for the said post vide memorandum dated 27.02.2008. He joined the post of Library Clerk on 25.03.2008. Vide letter dated 22.02.2005, a requisition for notifying 02 (two) posts in the Grade of Library Clerk (Mending) in scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- in the National Library was forwarded to the Staff Selection Commission. The private respondent as well as the applicant appeared for interview at the same time wherein the private respondent's rank was 01 and that of the applicant was 02.
While the applicant joined the post of Library Clerk (Mending) on 25.03.2008, the private respondent joined the said post on 13.04.2009. The applicant's name was placed at Serial No. 2 in the seniority list dated 01.09.2019 for the post of Library Clerk and name of the private respondent appeared at Serial No. 1 of the said list. Being aggrieved with his seniority position at no. 2 instead of no. 1 of the seniority list dated 01.09.2019, the applicant submitted a representation dated 10.02.2020. In reply to the said letter, the applicant was informed that the seniority position of both Shri A. Arumugum (Rank No. SL - 01) and Shri Jayabrata Hazra (Rank No. Sl. 02) in the grade of Library Clerk (Mending) was determined on the basis of the Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
5 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
advice of Staff Selection Commission. The applicant filed O.A No. 2027/2021 challenging the seniority list of 2019 and the rejection order dated 10.02.2020.
During the pendency of O.A No. 2027/2021, the respondents granted promotion to the private respondent to the post of Library and Information Assistant (Machine Operator) on ad hoc basis vide order dated 31.03.2023. Aggrieved by the grant of promotion to the private respondent, the applicant filed O.A No. 538/2023.
5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the nomination of Sri A. Arumugam was withdrawn vide letter dated 09.05.2008. The said recruitment was reconsidered and it was decided by the Commission to re-nominate the private respondent.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant states that DOP&T vide Office Memorandum dated 09.08.2017 have crystallized the rule with regard to candidates recommended by the UPSC / SSC for appointment to Central Civil Services and the post - delay in joining, revival of offers of appointment after cancellation and determination of seniority, while asking the Ministries / Departments to strictly adhere to instructions as contained in MHA's O.M. dated 06.06.1970 and DOP&T's O.M. dated 09.08.1995. A conjoint reading of the said O.M.s reveals that the maximum time-limit up to which an offer of appointment can be kept open is 6 months. It further reveals that an offer of appointment would lapse if the candidate do not join within a specific period as stated in the offer of appointment which should not normally exceed two or three months. It is also made clear that a candidate whose time limit as specified in the offer of appointment has lapsed, may submit a request for consideration of the same and the Ministries / Departments if they are satisfied, an extension for limited period Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
may be granted but the total period granted including the extension during which the offer of appointment will be kept open should not exceed the period of nine months (reduced to six months vide O.M. dated 09.08.1995). The candidates who join within the above period will have their seniority fixed under the seniority rules as applicable to the service/posts concerned to which they are appointed, without any depression of seniority. If after the extension of offer of appointment, a candidate does not join within the stipulated time period of a maximum of nine months, the order of appointment should lapse. It is amply clear that as applicant joined the post of Library Clerk (Mending) on 13.04.2009, i.e. one year after the date of joining of the applicant i.e. on 25.03.2008, therefore, the seniority of the applicant should be fixed above that of the private respondent.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant further submits that if the seniority of the applicant is not rectified and the correct seniority position is not assigned to him, applicant will suffer irreparable loss in respect of his promotion.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant states that vide order dated 29.06.2022 in O.A No. 2027/2021, the Tribunal observed that:
"Ld. Counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant apprehends that he may be superseded by said Arumugam in the next higher post whereas Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there is no proposal as yet for holding any fresh promotion for the post of LIA (Machine Operator)."
However, vide Office Order No. 1065 of 2022-2023 dated 31.03.2023, the private respondent was promoted to the post of Library and Information Assistant (Machine Operator) on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months or till the post is filled up on regular basis.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
7 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
6. Applicant has cited the following grounds to advance his claim:
a) The principles of natural and procedural justice has been flagrantly violated by the respondent authorities under the facts and circumstances of the case.
b) Though the applicant and the private respondent were selected for the post of Library Clerk (Mending) as advertised vide Category No. 7 of Advt. No. SCC/ER-1/2007 wherein after interview, the applicant's name appeared at 02 of the Merit List and that of private respondent appeared at 01 of the Merit List, but the date of joining of applicant to the said post is 25.03.2008 which is one year prior to that of the private respondent which is beyond the joining time as per the offer of appointment which results in the loss of seniority of the private respondent.
c) The seniority which has been assigned to the applicant vis-à-vis the private respondent is contrary and in violation of the instructions as contained in MHA's O.M. dated 06.06.1978 and DOP&T's O.M. dated 09.08.1995 and as such the seniority assigned to the private respondent is bad in law.
d) The respondent authorities have deviated, bypassed, breached the promise made by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that there is no proposal as yet for holding any fresh promotion for the post of LIA (Machine Operator) as highlighted in order dated 29.06.2022 which attracts the principles of promissory estoppels resulting in treating Office Order dated 31.03.2023 void ab initio.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
e) When O.A. No. 2027/2021 is sub-judice before this Tribunal and when this Tribunal is in session of the said lis and a promise has been advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents with regard to promotion to the post of LIA (Machine Operator) the action on the part of the respondents in giving ad-hoc promotion to the private respondent is not only illegal but also bad in law.
7. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that in the matter of delay in his joining, the private respondent had no role to play. Neither he lied nor concealed any fact nor he gave any misconception regarding his education so the Commission re-nominated him. Private respondent was re-nominated from the same advertisement of vacancy and from the same selection process held wherein the private respondent ranked 1 (First).
Ld. Counsel for the respondents further submits that by letter dated 19.05.2009, Staff Selection Commission had clearly mentioned that seniority "should be fixed on the basis of the ranks of the candidate in the Examination and not on the basis of their dates of joining. Seniority of the candidates in question be fixed accordingly."
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that no fresh proposal for filling up the post of LIA (M.O) on regular basis has been sent to the Ministry of Culture. According to the existing seniority position, the office has offered ad-hoc promotion to A. Arumugam for a period of six months in the interest of public service, pending judgment of the Court. There is no question of violation or breach of promise.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that as per the Govt. of India Rules, DoPT guidelines and rules, the seniority of direct recruits will be Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
determined in the order of merit in which they are selected for appointment on recommendation of SSC. According to the merit, Shri A. Arumugam is Rank-01 and Shri Jayabrata Hazra is Rank-02. Thus, the office fixed the seniority position of Shri. A. Arumugam at Sl. No. 1 and Shri Jayabrata Hazra at Sl. No. 2 in the Seniority List dated 01.09.2019 in the grade of Library Clerk (Mending).
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that due to withdrawal of nomination of Shri A. Arumugam by the Staff Selection Commission from the National Library before re-nominating him for appointment to the post of Library Clerk (Mending) in the National Library, the joining of Shri A. Arumugam was delayed. Neither he willingly delayed his joining nor was he re-nominated after his offer of appointment was cancelled. Thus, according to their merit of selection of SSC, seniority position of Shri A. Arumugam (Rank-01) fixed at No. 1 and seniority of Shri Jayabrata Hazra (Rank-02) fixed at no. 02 in the seniority list for Library Clerks (Mending). At present, there is only one sanctioned post of Library and Information Assistant (Machine Operator). The last holder of the post of LIA (Machine Operator) has retired from the post on 28.02.2022. The jobs attached to the post of Library and Information Assistant (Machine Operator) are hampering badly in the office. Therefore, the office has filled up the post of Library and Information Assistant (Machine Operator) on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months in the interest of public service.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the Office Book Seniority List as on 01.07.2010 shows Shri A. Arumugam at Serial No. 19, and Shri Jayabrata Hazra at Serial No. 20. As per Circular No. 8 of 2017-18 dated 05th May, 2017 page no. 17, Shri A. Arumugam is at Serial No. 1 and Shri Jayabrata Hazra is at Serial No.
02. Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
8. Private respondent in his reply states that on 24.03.2008, the office of the respondent herein issued the offer of appointment to the post of Library Clerk (Mending) and on the self-same date, the said offer was accepted. Thereafter, the Staff Selection Commission issued a Memorandum dated 28.03.2008 that the deponent had acquired essential qualification for the post of Library Clerk (Mending) through Distance Education from Annamalai University on 12.09.2003, whereas the Ministry of Human Resource Development vide their letter had intimated that they have not granted recognition to the Distance Education programme, Annamalai University for the period from 01.03.1995 to 15.02.2007.
Therefore, the deponent was directed to submit documents to prove that his degree had the approval of Distance Educational Council. On 16.04.2008, the Senior Administrative Officer issued a letter dated 16.04.2008 addressed to the officials of National Archive of India citing the reason of non-approval of distance educational programme of Annamalai University for the period from 01.03.1995 to 15.02.2007 and on such basis the Staff Selection Commission requested the National Library to keep nomination of the deponent for appointment to the post of Library Clerk (Mending) in abeyance.
Staff Selection Commission issued a memorandum dated 09.05.2008 whereby it was informed to the deponent that the nomination for the post of Library Clerk (Mending) offer vide letter dated 27.02.2008 stands withdrawn. In pursuance to the aforesaid letter, the office of the respondent issued letter dated 21.05.2008 thereby cancelling the offer of appointment. Annamalai University issued a letter dated 23.07.2008 addressed to the private respondent and informed that post facto recognition (prior to 15.02.2007) was accorded on 21.07.2008 to the programmes offered by Directorate of Distance Education, Annamalai University by the Distance Educational Council (DEC), New Delhi. Staff Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
Selection Commission issued a memorandum dated 14.01.2009 decided to re- nominate the deponent for the post of Library Clerk (Mending). Private respondent joined the post of Library Clerk (Mending) on 13.04.2009.
Private respondent submits that the seniority list of the respondent organization issued on 01.07.2010 and the same was unchallenged by the applicant at that point of time. Therefore, the seniority list as on 01.07.2010 attained finality with the passage of time. He further states that the DOPT Office Memorandum dated 09.08.2017 is not applicable in the present facts and scenario as the private respondent was placed higher on the merit list but could not join the post for no fault on his part. The private respondent has the requisite essential qualification as per the recruitment rule.
Ld. Counsel for the private respondent states that as per DOPT instructions relied upon by the applicant, in case where offer of appointment has been sent to the candidate and the candidate has sought extension of time for joining the post, the same may be considered in accordance with Department of Personnel & Training OM dated 06-06-1978 as amended vide OM dated 09-08-1995. The O.M dated 06.06.1978 and 09.08.1995 would be applicable when a candidate himself or herself sought extension of time of joining the post. Therefore, the aforesaid OM cited by the applicant is not applicable as the private respondent did not seek extension of time for joining the post. The applicant is challenging the subsequent seniority list dated 01.09.2019 but did not challenge the earlier seniority list.
He relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Bajwa vs. State of Punjab (1998) 2 SCC 523 and in K.A Abdul Majid vs. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 292 dealing with the issue of belated challenge to the seniority lists. Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
9. In his rejoinder, the applicant submits that the National Library did not circulate any seniority list on 01.07.2010 and the authenticity and veracity of the seniority list dated 01.07.2010 as referred to by the private respondent is put to strict proof as the same has not been circulated through a forwarding letter nor the same contains any signature of the competent authority. The National Library in its reply against O.A No. 538 of 2023 and also against O.A No. 2027 of 2021 did not mention the existence of a seniority list dated 01.07.2010.
10. Heard the parties. Perused material on record.
11. The applicant and the Private Respondent were both selected by Staff Selection Commission for the post of Library Clerk (Mending) in National Library, Kolkata against the same vacancy notice as well as through the same selection process. Private Respondent was placed at Srl. No. 1 in the select list and the applicant was placed at Srl. No. 2. Both of them were issued appointment letters by National Library on the recommendation of the SSC. The applicant joined his post on 25.03.2008. However, recommendation of SSC in favour of the Private Respondent was first kept in abeyance by the SSC and was subsequently withdrawn as it was found that his essential qualification was obtained from a university which was not recognized. This led to the cancellation of his offer of appointment by the official respondents.
Subsequently, the University was granted ex-post-facto recognition by the government for the period during which the Private Respondent had obtained the essential qualification. He was re-nominated by the SSC for the same post in National Library and the Private Respondent joined as Library Clerk (Mending) in National Library on 13.04.2009, i.e. more than a year after the applicant had joined his post on 25.03.2008. Respondents have placed the Private Respondent Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
above the applicant in the seniority list for the said post on the ground that Private Respondent was placed above the applicant in the merit list issued by the SSC. This has given rise to the grievance of the applicant who claims a higher position in the seniority list vis-à-vis the Private Respondent on the ground that the Private Respondent joined more than a year after him.
The respondents issued an order of promotion on ad hoc basis in favour of the Private Respondent on 31.03.2023. This order is under challenge in OA. 538 of 2023. However, during the pendency of the OA, this promotion order has been withdrawn by the respondents vide order dated 24.07.2023. Respondents have fairly submitted that the said promotion order was cancelled on receipt of letter dated 12.07.2023 from the Ministry of Culture, their controlling Ministry. It is therefore, not considered necessary to address the issue of ad hoc promotion granted to the Private Respondent vide order dated 31.03.2023.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant's arguments are summarized as under:
(i) He became aware of the seniority list of 2019 after it was published on the respondent's website. No other seniority list including these dated 01.07.2010 and 31.03.2017 referred to by the official and the Private Respondent respectively were made available to the applicable nor did he have access to these seniority lists.
(ii) Inordinate delay in joining of the Private Respondent attracts the provisions of DOP&T's OMs dated 09.08.2017 and 09.08.1995 and MHA's OM dated 06.06.1978 which clearly states that the seniority of a candidate joining after 9 months (reduced to 6 months vide OM Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
dated 09.08.1995) will be fixed below the candidates who have already joined.
13. Official and the Private Respondents, on the other hand, make the following points:
(i) Private Respondent was not responsible for the delay in his joining.
(ii) Provisions of DOPT OMs dated 09.08.2017 and 09.08.1995 and of MHA OM dated 06.06.1978 are not applicable to the case of Private Respondent as he never asked for extension of date for joining.
(iii) Staff Selection Commission vide their letter dated 19.05.2009 has clarified that the seniority of the applicant and the Private Respondent should be fixed based on their merit position in SSC selection list.
(iv) Seniority lists showing the Private Respondent as senior to the applicant were published on 01.07.2010 and on 31.03.2017. In the absence of any challenge to these lists, the relative seniority positions of the applicant and the Private Respondent have attained finality. The applicant cannot challenge the seniority list of 2019 as the same is based on the earlier lists of 2010 and 2017.
14. The applicant in his rejoinder has vehemently asserted that the seniority lists allegedly published prior to the impugned seniority list of 2019 were never made public. He has also cast doubt on the veracity of these lists as they are not mentioned by the official respondents in their replies to the two OAs.
15. Based on the facts and the submissions made by the rival parties, the following issues are framed for adjudication:
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
(i) Whether the applicant is estopped from challenging the seniority list of 2019 in view of the seniority settled by earlier seniority lists which were not challenged.
(ii) Whether the respondents were correct in fixing seniority of the applicant and the Private Respondent on the basis of SSC merit list and on the advice of SSC as contained in their letter dated 19.05.2009.
(iii) Whether the provisions contained in MHA OM dated 06.06.1978 and DOPT OM dated 09.08.1995 are applicable in the case of the Private Respondent.
16. Private Respondent in his reply has annexed a seniority list of Library Clerks as on 01.07.2010 where the names of Private Respondent and the applicant appear at Srl. No. 19 and 19 respectively. There is no indication however as to when this list was issued or if it was circulated amongst the employees concerned. The list does not contain the details of the issuing authority or any signature. In the circumstances, we find considerable force in the applicant's argument that the question of challenging this seniority list does not arise.
17. Ld. Counsel for the Official Respondents in her Written Note of Argument has enclosed a seniority list of Library Clerks (Mending) as on 31.03.2017 with the Private Respondent at Srl. No. 1 and the applicant at Srl. No. 2. This list apparently was circulated as a draft vide letter issued by the Head of the Office on 05.05.2017. The copy of this letter was marked to all Divisional/Sectional Heads, National Library with a direction to bring it to the notice of all the Staff concerned asking them to file objections if any within 15 days. There is no evidence nor any specific averment of the respondents that this draft seniority list was actually Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
circulated amongst the employees concerned. Also, the two affidavits in reply filed in OA nos. 2027/2021and 538/2023 contain no mention of any seniority list published prior to the impugned list of 2019. It is therefore concluded that the seniority lists published prior to 2019, even if such lists existed, were not available to the applicant at the material time and failure to challenge these lists does not take away the right of the applicant to challenge the seniority list published in 2019 which was made available on the website of the respondent organization.
18. It is not disputed that the applicant and the Private Respondent were nominated for appointment through the same selection process by the SSC against the same vacancy notification and that the Private Respondent was placed above the applicant in the merit list. Under normal circumstances, if the two candidates had joined their posts within a reasonable period their seniority would be determined as per their position in the SSC merit list, but in this case there was a delay of more than a year before the Private Respondent could take up his appointment in National Library. Determination of seniority of its employees is to be done by the user department as per instructions of DOP&T. SSC cannot issue mandatory instructions or guidelines regarding relative seniority of employees in a particular organization. SSC's role is limited to conducting the recruitment, nominating selected candidates for appointment and publishing a merit list of selected candidates. In our opinion, in issuing the letter dated 19.05.2009 advising the respondent's organization to fix the seniority of the two selected candidates as per merit in this particular case, the SSC has overreached itself and acted beyond its competence and merit. Therefore, the reliance placed by the respondents on the advice from SSC as conveyed through letter dated 19.05.2009 is misplaced.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
19. A combined reading of the DOP&T OMs dated 09.08.2017 and 09.08.1995 and MHA OM dated 06.06.1978 indicates that the instructions regarding delay in joining of candidates selected by the UPSC as contained in MHA OM dated 06.06.1978 would apply to selections by other agencies like the SSC also.
MHA OM dated 06.06.1978 is reproduced below:
"No.9/23/71-Estt(D) Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Karmik Aur Prashasnik Sudhar Vibhag) New Delhi, the 6th June, 1978 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject :- Candidates recommended by the UPSC for appointment to Central Civil Services and the post-delay in joining - revival of offers of appointment after the cancellation-determination of seniority. The undersigned is directed to refer to the general principles, of seniority contained in Ministry of Home Affairs' O.M. No. 9/11/55-RRS dated 22nd Dec, 1959 and to say that relative seniority of direct recruits appointed on the recommendations of the UPSC or any other authority is determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for such appointment, the persons appointed as result of an earlier selection being placed above those appointed as a result of the subsequent selection. It has come to the notice of the Government that in certain cases, the candidates recommended by them for appointment take long time to join and there have also been cases where offers of appointment were revived by Departments after they had been cancelled and in spite of the long delay in joining the candidates were allowed the benefit of seniority on the basis of their initial selection. The question whether in such cases it would not be desirable to depress the seniority of the candidates who are appointed on the result of the selections by interviews/examination was considered by the Government in consultation with the UPSC and it has been decided that the following procedure may be adopted. This procedure will be applicable both in cases of (a) selection through interview and (b) examinations.
(i) In the offers of appointment issued by different Ministries/Departments, it should be clearly indicated that the offer would lapse if the candidates did not join within a specified period not exceeding two or three months.Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 18 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
(ii) If, however, within the period stipulated, a request is received from the candidates for extension of time, it may be considered by the Ministries/Departments and if they are satisfied, an extension for a limited period may be granted but the total period granted including the extension during which the offer of appointment will be kept open, should not exceed a period of nine months. The candidates who join within the above period of nine months will have their seniority fixed under the seniority rules applicable to the service/post concerned to which they are appointed, without any depression of seniority.
(iii) If, even after the extension(s) if any granted by the Ministry/Departments, a candidate does not join within the stipulated time (which shall not exceed a period of nine months), the order of appointment should lapse.
(iv) An offer of appointment which has lapsed, should not ordinarily be revived later, except in exceptional circumstances and on grounds of public interest. The Commission should in all cases be consulted before such offers are revived.
(v) In a case where after the lapsing of the offer, the offer is revived in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission as mentioned in sub- para (iv) above, the seniority of the candidates concerned would be fixed below those who have already joined the posts concerned within the prescribed period of nine months; and if the candidate joins before the candidates of the next selection/examination join, he should be placed below all others of his batch. If however, the candidate joins after some or all the candidates of the next selection/examination have joined, he should be:
(a) In cases of selection through interview, placed at the bottom of all the candidates of the next batch.
(b) In the case of examination, allotted to the next years batch and placed at the bottom.
The Ministry of Finance are requested to bring the above instructions to the notice of all concerned."
(The period of 9 months mentioned in the above-quoted extract was reduced to 6 months vide DOP&T OM dated 09.08.1995).
20. It is a fact that the OMs mentioned above were implicitly issued in the context of selected candidates seeking extension of time after their selection to join in their posts. Private Respondent contends that he never sought extension of time. It was the SSC and the National Library which withdrew the nomination and cancelled his appointment. It was again the same authorities which re- nominated him for appointment. The nomination of the private respondent was withdrawn by the SSC when it came to light that the private respondent had Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 19 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
obtained his essential degree (B.Lib.Sc.) from Annamalai University through Distance Education in 2005. This course was not recognized by the Distance Education Council (DEC) in the period between 1995 and 2007 at the time of his initial selection and nomination in 2008. Ex-post-facto recognition for the period was granted by the DEC only in 2009 and the nomination of the private respondent was revived after that. Withdrawal of the private respondent's initial nomination by the SSC was caused by the fact that his essential qualification was obtained from an unrecognized university. The private respondent cannot completely escape responsibility for having enrolled and passed out of an unrecognized university. In our opinion, the private respondent is to a large extent responsible for withdrawal of his initial nomination which resulted in the delay of over a year in his joining. Under the circumstances, relying on the operative part of the above-quoted MHA OM dated 06.06.1978 para (v) which does not explicitly indicate that the decision applies only to those who have sought extension of time, it is held that para (v) of the MHA O.M. dated 06.06.1978 as quoted above, is applicable in the case of the Private Respondent. The applicant having joined in time and much earlier that the private respondent, should be placed above the private respondent in the seniority list of Library Clerks (Mending). The impugned seniority list dated 01.09.2019 is accordingly quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to recast the seniority list of Library Clerks (Mending) in accordance with the directions given above within a period of 90 days from the date a copy of this order is received by them and take further action in accordance with the seniority list so revised. Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 20 O.A. 538 of 2023 & O.A 2027 of 2021.
21. O.As and MA are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) (Urmita Datta (Sen))
Member (A) Member (J)
DB/PD
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0