Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Bahadur Singh vs Legislative Dept on 5 February, 2026
1
OA No. 840/2023
Item No.35/C-4
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 840/2023
Reserved on : 13.01.2026
Pronounced on : 05.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Bahadur Singh, Aged 52 years
Son of Shri Ram Lal
Working as Assistant Legislative Counsel in
Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi
Resident of H.No. 201, Block-40, Sec-1 Omicron
Greater Noida, U.P.-201310.
... Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through
The Secretary
Ministry of Law & Justice (Legislative Department)
Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Under Secretary (Administration-I)
Ministry of Law & Justice (Legislative Department)
Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
3. Sh. Praveen Kumar Tiwari
Working as Assistant Legislative Counsel
Ministry of Law & Justice (Legislative Department)
Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
4. Sh. Chandra Shekhar Sharma
Working as Assistant Legislative Counsel
Ministry of Law & Justice (Legislative Department)
Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
.. Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. R.K. Jain for R-1 & 2, Mr. S.N. Tripathi with Mr.
K.K. Mishra for R-3 and Mr. R.V. Sinha for R-4)
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30'
2
OA No. 840/2023
Item No.35/C-4
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A) In the present Original Application (O.A.) filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought for the following reliefs:-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the seniority list dated 26.02.2019, 18.02.2020 and 17.10.2022 only in respect of the inter-se-
seniority of applicant and private respondent and consequently, pass an order directing the official respondents to place the applicant above the private respondent on the basis of the date of joining to the post of Assistant Legislative Counsel with all consequential benefits.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 15.12.2022, dated 30.07.2018, dated 28.02.2019 by which the representation of the applicant against the impugned seniority list has been rejected.
(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation. "
2. Brief facts of the case, as put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant, are that:
2.1 The applicant was initially appointed to the post of Assistant (Legal) on 17.06.2004 in the Legislative Department of Ministry of Law & Justice. He was promoted to the post of Superintendent (Legal) on 08.10.2012. The next promotional post is Assistant Legislative Counsel, for which the Superintendent (Legal) with 3 years regular service is eligible. The mode of recruitment for the said post is 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment.Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 3 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4 2.2 One vacancy of Assistant Legislative Counsel arose on 30.09.2015 due to retirement of one Sh. B.K. Bansal. The respondents instead of convening a regular DPC for filling up the said vacancy, promoted the applicant to the post of Assistant Legislative Counsel on ad hoc basis on 19.10.2015. Thereafter, the said vacancy was carried forward to the subsequent year. 2.3 A proposal for filling up 3 vacancies by way of promotion was submitted to the UPSC on 02/03.05.2016 and on the basis of the recommendation of the UPSC, the applicant was promoted on regular basis on 20.07.2016. Subsequently, a proposal for filling up 6 vacancies through direct recruitment was submitted to the UPSC on 20.10.2016 and after selection, the private respondents were appointed on direct recruitment basis on 20/21.02.2018. 2.4 Following these appointments, the respondents issued a provisional seniority list dated 03.07.2018 wherein the name of the applicant was placed at Serial No.11, whereas the names of the private respondents were placed at Serial Nos.8 and 10, i.e. above the applicant. Against this provisional seniority list, the applicant submitted his objection vide letter dated 16.07.2018, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 30.07.2018. 2.5 Thereafter, without finalizing the earlier seniority list, the respondents issued another provisional seniority list on 26.02.2019. In the said list also, the names of the private respondents were Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 4 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4 placed above the applicant at Serial Nos. 7 & 9, while the applicant was placed at Serial No.10. The applicant again submitted his objection on 20.02.2019, but the same was also rejected vide order dated 28.02.2019. The respondents issued a final seniority list of Assistant Legislative Counsel on that date.
2.6 Though the applicant decided to challenge this final seniority list before the competent court of law, in the meantime, the respondents issued another provisional list vide dated 06.02.2020 and again invited the objections for the same against this seniority list. Again the applicant submitted his objection on 20.02.2020, but the respondents without considering the objection made by the applicant, issued final seniority list on 18/19.02.2020. 2.7 Subsequently, another provisional seniority list dated 17.10.2022 was issued, wherein the respondents again fixed the seniority of the private respondents above the applicant. Against this seniority list, the applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 26.10.2022, highlighting the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. vs Ningam Siro & Ors., (2020) 5 SCC 689. However, the respondents rejected the same vide order dated 15.12.2022, stating that the seniority of direct recruitment of the year 2016 is to be determined in accordance with the DoP&T OM dated 04.03.2014, and not as per OM dated 04.03.2021.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 5 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4 2.8 Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the whole action of the respondents in not fixing the seniority of the applicant in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh and not placing him above the private respondents, is totally illegal, arbitrary and in clear contravention of settled position of law. He further argued that the respondents fixed the seniority of the private respondents above the applicant in accordance with the DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014, which was issued in compliance of the Apex Court's decision in the case of N.R. Parmar. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Judgment in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) overruled the decision in Union of India and others vs N.R. Parmar, (2012)13 SCC 340, meaning thereby, the OM dated 04.03.2014 is no more available and the same is non- existent in the eyes of law.
2.9 In addition to above, the applicant had disputed the seniority of the private respondents since issuance of first provisional seniority list dated 03.07.2018, meaning thereby, the inter se seniority between the applicant and the private respondents was already in dispute and under challenge before the Competent Authority, and therefore, should be finalized on the basis of the law laid down in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra), wherein the Apex Court has observed that "a person is disentitled to claim seniority from a date he was not borne in service" and also that "person Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 6 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4 cannot be said to have been recruited to the service only on the basis of initiation of process of recruitment". 2.10 It is also submitted that the applicant was promoted as Assistant Legislative Counsel on ad hoc basis on 19.10.2015. Though he was fully eligible for regular promotion to the post, the Department ignored him for regular promotion. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Bangalore dated 15.03.2019 in the case of Solomon D.B. Chenji vs Union of India & Others, wherein this Tribunal directed as under:
"Therefore, the only declaration we need to make is that whether the adhoc to be treated as regular or not? Which we hereby do. The OA is allowed to this extent for all purposes and the applicant will be entitled to be considered as regularly promoted from the date on which he was promoted on ad-hoc basis. While allowing the OA we also hold that the applicant will be eligible to consequential benefits if any."
In view of above settled position of law, the applicant is entitled to be treated as regularly promoted w.e.f. 19.10.2015, with all consequential benefits including seniority. 2.11 The applicant was granted regular promotion w.e.f. 20.07.2016, whereas the private respondents No.3 and 4 joined the post on 20.02.2018 and 21.02.2018, respectively, on direct recruitment basis. The proposal for filling up the direct recruitment vacancies was sent to the UPSC by the official respondents only on 27.12.2016, i.e. almost after six months, and even by applying the Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 7 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4 N.R. Parmar (supra), one can claim seniority only from the date of initiation of process for appointment, meaning thereby, the private respondent cannot claim their seniority prior to 27.12.2016 even by applying the judgment in N.R. Parmar's case, and therefore, fixing the seniority of the private respondents above the applicant is totally illegal and arbitrary.
2.12 In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the following case laws:
(i) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's Judgment in WP(C) No. 12135/2023 titled as The Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Anil Katyal & Ors. with connected matters, decided on 18.03.2024;
(ii) Order dated 09.02.2023 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1656/2022 titled as Sandeep Rai & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.
3. Per contra, Mr. Ravi Kant Jain, learned counsel for the official respondents No.1 and 2, took preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the O.A. He submitted that the representation dated 16.07.2018 made by the applicant concerning the grievance raised in the present O.A. was duly rejected by the respondents vide speaking note dated 30.07.2018, whereas the present O.A. has been filed on 17.03.2023, i.e., after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 4 years and 7 months. Therefore, the O.A. is hopelessly time barred and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 8 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4 3.1 On merits, placing reliance upon the averments made in their counter affidavit/surjoinder, he submitted that the total sanctioned strength in the grade of Assistant Legislative counsel is 18. In the year 2016-17, total 9 vacancies were available, out of which 5 were to be filled up by direct recruitment and 4 were to be filled up by promotion. However, one vacancy in promotion quota earmarked for ST category was diverted to direct recruitment quota with the approval of the UPSC vide letter dated 22.06.2016 as no ST candidate was available in the feeder grade for filling up the post by promotion and the proposal for de-reservation of ST vacancy was not acceded to, resulting in 6 vacancies for direct recruitment and remaining 3 by promotion.
3.2 The proposal for filling up 3 vacancies by promotion was submitted to the UPSC on 02.05.2016 and for 6 vacancies by direct recruitment was submitted on 20.10.2016. Accordingly, the recruitment year for these 9 vacancies is 2016-17. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in its meeting held on 20.07.2016 recommended the following officers for promotion:
S.No. Name of the Officer Date of
promotion
1. Shri BNSVSK Bangarraju 20.07.2016
2. Shri K K Sharma Proforma
promotion vide
notification dated
07.09.2016
3. Dr. Bahadur Singh 20.07.2017
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30'
9
OA No. 840/2023
Item No.35/C-4
and vide letter dated 15.01.2018, the UPSC recommended the following 6 candidates for direct recruitment:
S. Name Date of Notification Remarks
No. appointment date
1. Shri Praveen 20.02.2018 21.02.2018 Private
Kumar Tiwari respondent
(R-3)
2. Shri Chandra 21.02.2018 20.02.2018 Private
Shekhar Kumar (AN) respondent
(R-4)
3. Shri Sanjay 14.06.2018 14.06.2018
Kumar Gautam
4. Shri Atul 20.03.2018 20.03.2018
Kumar Singh
5. Shri Sanjay 07.03.2018 07.03.2018
Kumar Meena
6. Shri Deepak 18.04.2018 18.04.2018
Bagsing
3.3 The seniority of Indian Legal Service Officers is governed by
Rule 11 of the Indian Legal Service Rules, 1957, which provides that seniority shall be determined as per general instructions issued by the Central Government from time to time. The relevant instructions are contained in DoPT OMs dated 07.02.1986, 03.07.1986 and 04.03.2014, which provide that the recruitment year is the year in which the recruitment process was initiated. 3.4 In pursuance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment dated 27.11.2012 in the case of N.R. Parmar, the DoPT issued instructions regarding inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees vide OM dated 04.03.2014, according to which the recruitment year would be the year of initiating the recruitment process against a vacancy year, i.e. the date of sending of requisition Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 10 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4 for filling up of vacancies to the recruiting agency in the case of direct recruits and in the case of promotees the date on which a proposal, complete in all respects, is sent to UPSC for convening a DPC to fill up the vacancies through promotion would be the relevant date. As per para 5(b) of ibid OM, the inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees would be decided as per instructions provided in DoPT OMs dated 07.02.1986/03.07.1986. 3.5 He referred to Para 3 of the DoP&T OM dated 07.02.1986, which provides as under:-
"1. The relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between available direct recruits and promotees which shall be based on the quota of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion respectively in the Recruitment Rules.
2. If adequate number of direct recruits does not become available in any particular year, rotation of quotas for purpose of determining seniority would take place only to the extent of the available direct recruits and the promotees. In other words, to the extent direct recruits are not available, the promotees will be bunched together at the bottom of the seniority list, below the last position upto which it is possible to determine seniority on the basis of rotation of quotas with reference to the actual number of direct recruits who' become available. The unfilled direct recruitment quota vacancies would, however, be carried forward and added to the corresponding direct recruitment vacancies of the next year (and to subsequent years where necessary) for taking action for direct recruitment for the total number according to the usual practice. Thereafter, in that year while seniority will be determined between direct recruits and promotees, to the extent of the number of vacancies for direct recruits and promotees as determined according to the quota for that year, the additional direct recruits selected against the carried forward vacancies of the previous year would be placed en-bloc below the last promotee (or direct recruit as the case may be) in the seniority list based on the rotation of vacancies for that year. The same principle holds good in determining seniority in the event of carry forward, if any, of direct recruitment or promotion quota vacancies (as the case may be) in the subsequent years."Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 11 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4 3.6 Accordingly, based on the principle of rotations of quota, inter-se seniority of 9 officers (3 promotees and 6 direct recruits), who belong to the recruitment year 2016-17, was fixed by placing promotees and directs in the ratio 1:1 below the direct recruit of 2014-15, to the extent of the availability of promotees. After that remaining three DRs were placed en bloc below the last promotee, which is as under:-
1. Shri BNSVSK Bangarraju -Promotee
2. Shri Praveen Kumar Tiwari -DR
3. Shri K K Sharma -Promotee
4. Shri Chandra Shekhar Sharma -Promotee
5. Dr. Bahadur Singh -DR
6. Shri Sanjay Kumar Gautam -DR
7. Shri Atul Kumar Singh -DR
8. Shri Sanjay Kumar Meena -DR
9. Shri Deepak Bagsing -DR 3.7 Subsequently, the inter se seniority of promotees and direct recruits of the recruitment year 2018 was fixed based on the same principle by placing them in 1:1 ratio below direct recruits of the year 2016-17. Consequently, the seniority lists in the grade of Assistant Legislative Counsel as on 01.01.2019, 01.01.2020 and 01.01.2022 have been correctly finalized after considering the representations submitted by the stakeholders, including that of the applicant.Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 12 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4 3.8 Further, the DoP&T vide OM No. 20011/2/2019-Estt. (D) dated 13.08.2021 issued revised instructions relating to inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees in pursuance of the Judgment dated 19.11.2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8833-8835 of 2019 in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. (supra). It has been clearly mentioned therein that the provisions of the OM shall come into effect from 19.11.2019 onwards. Para 7(ii) of the said OM dated 13.08.2021 provides that as the Order dated 19.11.2019 is prospective, cases of inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees already decided in terms of O.M. No.20011/1/2012-Estt.(D) dated 04.03.2014 shall not be disturbed, i.e. old cases are not to be reopened.
3.9 Hence, it may be seen that in the present case, the seniority of the applicant is to be decided in terms of DoP&T OM dated 04.03.2014 issued in pursuance of judgment in N.R. Parmar's case and not in terms of DoP&T OM dated 13.08.2021 which have been issued in pursuance of judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. The claim of the applicant that his seniority is to be decided as per instructions dated 13.08.2021 has no merit. 3.10 He has also placed reliance upon the following case laws:-
(i) Y. Ramamohan and others vs. Government of India & others, (2001) 10 SCC 537;Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 13 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4
(ii) W.P. (C) No.7625/2000 titled Union of India & Anr. vs. Sompal decided on 11.08.2011 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
4. Mr. S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for private respondent No.3 has filed a separate counter affidavit and reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the official respondents. It is also submitted that the applicant has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands as he has deliberately suppressed the fact that his representation preferred in the year 2018 was already considered and rejected, which disentitles him from seeking any discretionary relief, and prayed that the O.A. may be dismissed in limine.
5. Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel for private respondent No. 4 raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the O.A., and submitted that the O.A. suffers from an inordinate and unexplained delay and is not accompanied by any application seeking condonation of delay, as required under law, and cannot be permitted to agitate a clearly time-barred and stale claim. On this ground alone, the O.A. deserves to be dismissed. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(i) D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India & Ors., 2011 SCC OnLine SC 449;
(ii) Union of India & Ors. v. C. Girija & Ors., (2019) 15 SCC 267;
(iii) Brijesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 351;Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 14 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4
(iv) Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 471 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 229;
(v) Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, (2022) 12 SCC 579; (vi) K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 395. 5.1 Besides that, it is trite law that repeated representations do not give a fresh cause of action. From the OA, it is evident that the applicant has represented to the department vide his representation dated 16.07.2018 which was rejected vide order dated 30.07.2018, and the cause of action, if any, arose on 30.07.2018 is individual right and if one challenges the same, all the persons likely to be affected from the order have to be impleaded as necessary parties. Thus, the OA is also bad and not maintainable on account of non- joinder of necessary party.
5.2 It is also stated that it is trite law that the seniority list is not amenable to challenge after considerable lapse of time and on this ground also, the O.A. is not maintainable on account of delay and latches, in addition to ground of limitation, as mentioned above. It is trite law that the settled seniority list should not be unsettled. 5.3 He also stated that as per the DoPT instructions regarding ad hoc appointment issued vide OM dated 02.09.2022 (Annexure R-
10), service rendered on ad hoc basis in a particular grade does not count towards seniority in that grade or confer eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade, and this clause was also Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 15 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4 mentioned in the notification issued for ad hoc appointment of the applicant. The reliance placed by the applicant on the decision in Solomon D.B. Chenji vs Union of India is misconceived, as the said judgment is per incuriam and not a binding precedent insofar as it runs contrary to the settled law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court. It is well settled that no person can claim seniority or promotional eligibility from a retrospective date, from the date of ad hoc appointment, or prior to regular appointment or availability of a vacancy. This position stands reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. vs Dharamdeo Das, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768 (paras 17-24) and by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India & Anr. vs K.L. Taneja & Anr., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1428 (paras 7 & 21) and Union of India & Ors. vs Vijender Singh & Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4189 (para 43). 5.4 He further stated that reliance placed by the applicant on the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Meghachandra Singh's case does not help the applicant, rather this itself is against him inasmuch as the Judgment dated 19.11.2019 held as under: -
"40. The Judgment in N. R. Parmar (Supra) relating to the Central Government employees cannot in our opinion, automatically apply to the Manipur State Police Officers, governed by the MPS Rules, 1965. We also feel that N.R. Parmar (Supra) had incorrectly distinguished the long-standing seniority determination principles propounded in, inter-alia, J.C. Patnaik (Supra), Suraj Prakash Gupta & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 561 and Pawan Pratap Singh & Ors.
Vs. Reevan Singh & Ors.(Supra). These three judgments and several others with like enunciation on the law for Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 16 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4 determination of seniority makes it abundantly clear that under Service Jurisprudence, seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbent is yet to be borne 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."
5.5 Following the above Judgment, the DoPT issued OM dated 13.08.2021, para 7 of which specifically direct that the order dated 29.11.2019 is prospective. Cases of inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, already decided in terms of OM dated 04.03.2014, shall not be disturbed, i.e., old cases are not to be reopened. In the instant case, admittedly, seniority list dated 30.07.2018 was issued wherein the applicant's name is at serial No.11 and private respondent No.4 is at serial No.10. In the subsequent seniority lists dated 26.02.2019 as on 01.01.2019 also, the name of the applicant finds place at serial No.11 below the private respondent No.4, whose name is at serial No.10. From the seniority list dated 26.02.2019, it is evident that all the private respondents are placed above the applicant and the judgment referred to above, is against him and the O.A. is misuse of process of law by the applicant. The applicant has unnecessarily filed the avoidable litigation and by misrepresenting the facts, has tried to mislead this Tribunal, and therefore, the O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 17 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4 5.6 The official respondents have also filed a surjoinder on 09.05.2024 whereby they have reiterated their stand and explained as to how the seniority list has been prepared, including that reference to the DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021 is misconceived.
6. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the applicant's claim. In rebuttal to the objection raised by the private respondents regarding non-joinder of party, it is submitted that the applicant impleaded both persons against whom he is seeking relief as private respondents. In this regard, he referred to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Shukla vs Arvind Rai, (2022) 12 SCC 579, highlighting para 47 of the Judgment, which reads thus:
"47. ..........In view of the above, it is well settled that impleadment of a few of the affected employees would be sufficient compliance of the principle of joinder of parties and they could defend the interest of all affected persons in their representative capacity. Non-joining of all the parties cannot be held to be fatal."
6.1 As regards another objection of delay, it is submitted that the same has already been explained in para 3 of the OA. and also referred to the following Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(i) Kuldip Chand vs Union of India & Ors., 1995(5) SCC 680, wherein it has been held as under:
"when the aforesaid facts are taken into consideration, it would be obvious that the preparation of seniority list per se was illegal. Therefore, the mere fact that he did not challenge the seniority list, which was illegally prepared, till he was aggrieved for non-consideration of the claim to the post of accountant, his Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 18 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4 legitimate right to be considered cannot be denied. Under these circumstances, the delay is of non consequences of considering the claims of Ashok Kumar for the post of Accountant."
(ii) Ajay Kumar Shukla vs Arvind Rai, (2022) 12 SCC 579, whereby the Apex Court considered the aspect of delay and limitation and granted the relief even after 11 years of seniority list. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced below:
"50. .....Even if they did not challenge the seniority list of 2006, 2010 seniority list could always be revisited, reviewed and prepared afresh, if the same was quashed. The appellants could not have been at any loss even if they had not challenged the 2006 seniority list."
7. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the pleadings/written submissions and the judgments placed on record by them as well as original vacancy roster register produced by the respondents' counsel.
8. The first issue that falls for consideration is whether the present O.A. is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
9. Indubitably, the applicant's objection to the provisional seniority list dated 03.07.2018 was rejected on 30.07.2018, which ordinarily would give rise to a cause of action. However, the factual matrix reveals that the respondents themselves did not treat the matter as having attained finality, as multiple provisional seniority lists were issued thereafter on 26.02.2019, 06.02.2020 and Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 19 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4 17.10.2022, each time inviting objections from the stakeholders and reconsidering the issue of inter se seniority. The applicant consistently raised objections to each such list, thereby keeping the dispute alive.
10. While it is a settled proposition that repeated representations do not extend limitation, the present case stands on a different footing, as the employer itself repeatedly reopened the issue of seniority by issuing fresh provisional lists. In such circumstances, the cause of action cannot be said to have become stale or extinguished. Moreover, seniority disputes have continuing civil consequences affecting promotional prospects, and where the challenge is to an allegedly illegal fixation of seniority, delay by itself cannot be treated as fatal. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kuldip Chand (supra) and reaffirmed in Ajay Kumar Shukla (supra) makes it clear that where seniority is fixed contrary to law, mere passage of time cannot legitimize an illegality. Therefore, the objection regarding limitation and delay, though substantial, does not warrant rejection of the O.A. at the threshold in the peculiar facts of the present case.
11. Another objection raised by the respondents regarding non- joinder of necessary parties is also unacceptable, keeping in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Shukla (supra), as the applicant has impleaded the private respondents, Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 20 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4 who are directly placed above him in the seniority list and against whom specific relief has been sought. The challenge is confined to inter se seniority between the applicant and the said private respondents alone, impleadment of some of the affected employees is sufficient compliance, and accordingly, the objection of non- joinder is rejected.
12. The applicant has contended that his ad hoc promotion as Assistant Legislative Counsel w.e.f. 19.10.2015 ought to be treated as a regular promotion for all purposes, including seniority, which is wholly untenable. It is a well-settled principle of service jurisprudence that service rendered on ad hoc basis does not count towards seniority unless the appointment is made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, against a substantive vacancy, and followed by uninterrupted regularisation. The ad hoc promotion order itself clearly stipulated that the arrangement would not confer any right to seniority. The reliance placed on the decision of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in Solomon D.B. Chenji is misplaced being contrary to binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including Dharamdeo Das (supra), and therefore, cannot be treated as a binding precedent. Accordingly, the applicant's seniority can only be reckoned from 20.07.2016, i.e., the date of his regular promotion.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 21 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4
13. The core issue in the present O.A. revolves around determination of inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits of the recruitment year 2016-17. The seniority lists in question were prepared by applying the DoP&T OM dated 04.03.2014, which was issued in compliance with the judgment in N.R. Parmar (supra). Subsequently, the decision in N.R. Parmar's case was overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) vide Judgment dated 19.11.2019. However, the Apex Court unequivocally held that the overruling would operate prospectively and that inter se seniority already fixed under N.R. Parmar would remain protected. This position has been expressly reiterated by the DoP&T in OM dated 13.08.2021, which clarifies that cases of inter se seniority already decided under OM dated 04.03.2014 shall not be reopened.
14. In the present case, the record reveals that seniority lists were finalized as early as 30.07.2018 and 26.02.2019, i.e., prior to 19.11.2019. Even though subsequent lists were issued, they did not create a new recruitment year or fresh appointments but merely reflected the same seniority position. Therefore, the applicant cannot seek retrospective application of decision in K. Meghachandra Singh to unsettle the seniority, that had already been determined in accordance with the law prevailing at the relevant time.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 22 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4
15. Another contention of the applicant is that even under N.R. Parmar, the private respondents could not be assigned seniority prior to the date of initiation of the recruitment process does not merit acceptance. The respondents have established that both promotees and direct recruits pertain to the same recruitment year, i.e. 2016-17, and seniority was fixed by applying the rotation of quota principle as mandated by DoP&T OMs dated 07.02.1986 and 04.03.2014. The fixation of seniority on the basis of rotation of quota within the same recruitment year does not amount to granting seniority from a date prior to entry into service, but places them in the seniority list according to quota-based rotation, which is permissible under the then-prevailing governing instructions.
16. It is trite law that seniority, once settled and acted upon for a considerable period, ought not to be unsettled lightly, especially when third-party rights have crystallized. The applicant has been consistently placed below the private respondents in multiple seniority lists over several years, and promotions and career progression may have been effected on that basis. Interference at this belated stage would result in administrative uncertainty and prejudice.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant is not entitled to claim seniority from the date of his ad hoc promotion and the inter se seniority between the Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30' 23 OA No. 840/2023 Item No.35/C-4 applicant and the private respondents has been correctly determined in accordance with DoP&T OM dated 04.03.2014, which governed the field at the relevant time. The judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) and the consequential DoP&T OM dated 13.08.2021 are prospective and do not warrant reopening of seniority already finalized prior to 19.11.2019. Thus, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned seniority lists/orders as no discrimination, arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of statutory rules has been established.
18. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
19. The original vacancy roster register shall be returned to the respondents through their counsel in a sealed cover.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jyoti/
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2026.02.06 16:56:39+05'30'