Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Harendra Singh vs Defence on 7 May, 2026
1
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
OA No.4360 of 2024
With
OA No.436 of 2026
Orders reserved on :23.04.2026
Orders pronounced on : 07.05.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
OA No.4360 of 2024
Amit Kumar, Group-A
Working as Deputy Director General
Indian Defence Estates Service
Batch-2004 (Joining 28.3.2005)
Aged about 45 Years
S/o Sh. Gopal Lal Meena
R/o Flat No.9, Raksha Sampada Bhawan, Ulaanbatar Marg, Delhi
Cantt., New Delhi-110010.
....Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri Ankur Chhibber with Shri Nikunj Arora and Ms.
Muskan Dutta)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
North Block, New Delhi-110001
2. Director General Defence Estate (DGDE),
Office of Directorate General Defence Estate,
Raksha Sampada Bhawan, Delhi Cantt.
New Delhi-110010
3. Ms. Shalini Pandey (IDES:2004)
Batch-2004 (Joining 26.5.2005)
Working as Director,
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs (On Deputation)
Through the Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
4. Sh. Burande Kedar Prasad (IDES:2004)
Batch-2004 (Joining 30.5.2005)
Presently Undergoing NDC Training (on Deputation)
National Defence College, New Delhi
Through Director General Defence Estates, Delhi Cantt.-10
New Delhi-110001
....Respondents
2026.05.08
RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30'
2
(By Advocates : Shri S.D. Sanjay, ASGI assisted by Shri R.K. Jain, Shri
Shubh Sharma and Shri Khushal Kolwar for R-1 and R-2 and Shri
V.M. Srivastava with Shri G.D. Chawla and Shri Mahesh Srivastava
for R-3 and R-4)
OA 436/2026
HARENDRA SINGH
S/O SHRI BHUPAL SINGH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/o BUNGLOW NO.15, CANTONMENT HOUSE
CEO RESIDENCE
YOUNG ROAD
OPP. DSOI, DEHRADUN CANTT.
UTTARAKHAND-248001.
... Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri Ankur Chhibber with Shri Nikunj Arora and Ms.
Muskan Dutta)
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SOUTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI-110011.
2. THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL DEFENCE ESTATE
RAKSHA SAMPADA BHAWAN
ULAAN BAATAR MARG
DELHI CANTONMENT
NEW DELHI-110010.
3. SHRI VIVEK KUMAR
DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL LANDS
PRESENTLY POSTED AT
DIRECTORATE GENERAL DEFENCE ESTATES
ULLANBAATAR MARG, DELHI CANTT
NEW DELHI-110010
4. SMT SHARMISHTHA MAITRA
DIRECTOR
PRESENTLY POSTED AT
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SOUTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI-110011
... Respondents
(By Advocates : Shri S.D. Sanjay, ASGI assisted by Shri Thakur
Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Shri Shubh Sharma and Shri Khushal
Kolwar for R-1 and R-2 and Shri Vivek Kumar (R-3 in person) and Ms.
Sharmistha Maitra (R-4 in person)
2026.05.08
RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30'
3
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
Since the issues involved in both the captioned OAs are identical and arise out of a common set of facts, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, above O.A.s are taken up together and disposed of by way of this common Order. For the sake of convenience and clarity in the narration of facts and adjudication of the issues involved, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, O.A. No.4360/2024 is treated as the lead case and the facts therein are referred to.
2. The applicant, an Indian Defence Estates Service (in short 'IDES') Group 'A' officer of the 2004 batch, is aggrieved by the alteration of his long-settled seniority vis-à-vis private respondents, who were appointed later through the reserve list of the same Civil Services Examination. From 2005 till 2018, the applicant was consistently placed senior and was granted successive promotions on that basis. However, by the impugned orders beginning from 04.01.2019 and subsequent civil lists, the respondents revised the inter se seniority by applying DoPT's OMs dated 08.08.2013 and 09.01.2014, placing the private respondents above the applicant based on aggregate marks. The applicant's stand is that such retrospective disturbance of settled seniority after more than a decade without approval of the competent authority and contrary to settled legal principles and judicial precedents is illegal, arbitrary, and prejudicial, especially as it now threatens 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 4 review of his past promotions and future promotional prospects.
3. Thus, by filing the OA No.4360/2024 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:
"1. To quash the impugned Order dt.4.1.2019 (Ann A-1), Civil Lists of Indian Defence Estate Service Group-A Officers issued vide Order dt.19.6.2019 as on 1.3.2019, Order dt.5.3.2020 as on 1.3.2020, Order dated NIL (Uploaded on website) as on 30.12.2021, Order dt.8.12.2022 as on 1.12.2022, Order dt.20.6.2023 as on 1.6.2023 and objections invited vide letter dt.26.2.2024 as on 1.1.2024 (Ann A-2 Colly) and order dated 11.09.2024 (Ann A-3) to the extent the applicant has been illegally placed junior to the private respondents on the basis of OMs dated 8.8.2013 and 9.1.2014 issued by the DOPT being in violation of Judgment dt.12.7.2023 in WP No.14908/23 in which it was held that these OMs are not applicable to the factual situation arising in the present case.
2. To quash and set-aside ab-initio all illegal and arbitrary action taken, if any, by the respondents for reviewing the applicant's successive promotion to STS, JAG(OG) and JAG(SG) based on the illegally unsettled seniority;
3. To direct the official respondents to revise Civil Lists of Indian Defence Estate Service Group - A Officers placing the applicant senior to the private respondents and to consider the applicant for promotion to the post of SAG and promote the applicant to the post of SAG prior to his juniors with all consequential benefits.
4. To award costs in favor of the applicant and pass any order or orders, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case."
3.1 Similarly in connected OA No.436/2026, titled Harindra Singh vs. Union of India, the applicant has also sought the similar reliefs as follows:-
"i. Quash order dated 13.01.2026 issued by the Respondents whereby the representations of the Applicant have been rejected; and/or ii. Quash letter dated 07.01.2019 whereby the Respondents proceeded to execute the altered inter-se seniority of the officers of IDES as per the draft civil list dated 11.09.2018 on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by them in the Civil Services Examination; and/or iii. Quash the draft letter dated 11.09.2018 issued by the Respondents whereby the inter-se seniority of officers of the 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 5 2004 batch onwards had been re-fixed on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained in the Civil Services Examination; and/or iv. Direct the Respondents to re-fix and restore the seniority of the Applicant as it stood prior to the issuance of the letter dated 07.01.2019 by placing the Applicant at SI. No.30 of the Civil List dated 31.07.2017, along with all consequential benefits; and/or v. Direct the Respondents to give effect to and implement the pending recommendations of the DPC convened on 12.08.2025 by granting the Applicant due promotion to the next higher grade i.e., Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) with all consequential benefits; and/or vi. Pass any such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit."
FACTS OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was the only candidate allocated to IDES from the Main List result of the CSE (Civil Service Examination) 2003. He is presently holding the post of JAG (SG) in the office of DGDE and the respondent No.1 is the Cadre Controlling Authority of the applicant.
4.1 The applicant and private respondents applied in CSE-2003. The Main List Result of Civil Service Examination, 2003 was declared on 7.5.2004 (Annexure A-4) under which the applicant was selected. He was allocated service on 25.11.2004 and thereafter he was issued an Appointment Letter dated 10.01.2005. The applicant joined DGDE on 28.3.2005. After completion of the selection process of the candidates recommended from the main list of CSE-2003, the UPSC while considering the extant provisions of sub-rules (3), (4), & (5) of Rule 16 of the Civil Services Examination, Rules 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'CSE Rules of 2003') and by relaxing the minimum general qualifying standard 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 6 prescribed for recommending the candidates on main list, had declared the Result of Reserve List of CSE-2003 on 10.01.2005 recommending the candidates to the extent of vacancies which remained unfilled after completion of selection process from main list of CSE-2003, whereby the private respondents were also recommended at serial Nos 1 and 21, respectively and were allocated IDES (Annexure A-5). They joined on 26.5.2005 and 30.5.2005.
4.2 After appointment to the IDES and under the relevant rules/instructions, the inter-se seniority of the applicant was initially determined over and above the private respondents in JTS of IDES by the official respondents. Further, DGDE (Respondent No. 2) issued Civil Lists of Indian Defence Estate Service Group-A Officers annually for the years 2005 onwards till 2018, wherein the applicant has been placed en-bloc senior to the private respondents. The Seniority/ Civil lists for the years 2005 to 2018 were issued and finalized every year after inviting objections and suggestions from all concerned. Copies of Civil Lists of Indian Defence Estate Service Group-A Officers as on 31.12.2005 and as on 31.07.2017 are annexed as (Annexures A-6 & A-7 respectively. 4.3 The official respondents issued Orders of promotion of the applicant from the post of JTS to STS granted vide Order dated 31.3.2010, STS to JAG(OG) granted vide Order dated 7.1.2016 and placement of the applicant JAG(OG) to JAG(SG) granted vide Order dated 06.02.2018 based on Civil Lists of IDES Group - 'A' 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 7 Officers as on 31.12.2005 till 31.07.2017. The said promotions were accepted by the private Respondents without demure. The said orders dated 31.3.2010, 7.1.2016 and 06.02.2018 are annexed as (Annexures A-8 to A-10) respectively.
4.4 The department issued a Draft Civil List dated 11.9.2018 (Annexure A-11) showing/placing the applicant junior to the private respondents, seeking objections against the same. The applicant submitted his Objections dated 25.9.2018 (Annexure A-12) contending that the private respondents cannot be placed senior to him by drawing the attention of Respondent No. 2 to orders issued by the Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases wherein it has been categorically held by the Hon'ble Courts that seniority once settled due to efflux of time cannot be unsettled.
4.5 The applicant was served an order dated 4.1.2019 (Annexure A-1) whereby the seniority of the applicant vis-à-vis private respondents was changed without giving any cogent reasons for rejection of aforesaid objections dated 25.9.2018. 4.6 It is stated that the change of seniority position of the applicant vis-à-vis the private respondents has not been approved by the Cadre Controlling Authority. Therefore, the order dated 4.1.2019 and subsequent impugned orders are bad in law being passed by the incompetent authority.
2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 8 4.7 The applicant submitted Representation dated 18.1.2019 (Annexure A-13) against the order dated 4.1.2019. During the pendency of the said representation of the applicant against his altered seniority, the DGDE issued Civil Lists of Indian Defence Estate Service Group-A Officers vide letter dated 19.6.2019 as on 1.3.2019, letter dated 5.3.2020 as on 1.3.2020, letter dated NIL (Uploaded on website) as on 30.12.2021, letter dated 8.12.2022 as on 1.12.2022, letter dt.20.6.2023 as on 1.6.2023 and objections invited vide letter dt.26.2.2024 as on 1.1.2024 (Ann A-2 Colly) whereby the applicant was illegally placed junior to the private respondents based on the DoP&T's OMs dated 8.8.2013 and 9.1.2014.
4.8 When the applicant had not received any response from the official respondents on the said representation, he was constrained to submit reminder representations dated 24.7.2020 and 29.07.2022 (Annexure A-14 {Colly.}) against his placement as a junior to the private respondents despite the earlier Civil Lists implemented and executed by promoting the applicant prior to the private respondents.
4.9 It is also stated that the issue of granting seniority to the private respondents over and above the applicant based on marks secured by them in CSE-2003 even though the applicant was selected in the Main List and the private respondents were selected after the lapse of eight months in the Reserve List has been considered and decided in favour of the applicant vide 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 9 Order/Judgment dated 19.2.2020 in OP (CAT) No.172/19 in case of Bhupendra Sharma vs UOI passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala upheld vide judgment dated 12.7.2021 in SLP (C) No.5164/21 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, Review Petition No.62/22 was also dismissed vide Judgment dated 10.2.2022 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Annexure A-15 [Colly.]). The said Judgment was followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Judgment dated 12.7.2023 in WP (C) No.14908/24 in case of UOI vs Pallavi Gupta (Annexure A-16) 4.10 It is also stated that pending representation of the applicant, the proposal was sent to UPSC by the DGDE for promotion to SAG enclosing the Civil List of IDES Group-A Officers in which the applicant was shown junior to the private respondents. The proposal submitted by the official respondents on the basis of altered seniority of the applicant viz-a-viz private respondents has not been agreed to by the UPSC, who inter-alia observing that the seniority list in the feeder grade is not in correct order as per the panel promotion to JAG (OG) recommended by them and accordingly, returned the proposal for rectification of the seniority order in its correct order (Annexure A-17).
4.11 The applicant submitted representation dated 2.9.2024 against his placement as a junior to the private respondents in view of the aforesaid judgments dated 12.7.2023 and 19.02.2020 (Annexure A-18). However, vide order dated 11.9.2024 (Annexure A-3), the DGDE rejected the said representation dated 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 10 2.9.2024 on the basis of OMs dated 8.8.2013 and 9.1.2014 issued by the DOPT violating the judgment dated 12.7.2023 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pallavi Gupta (supra), held that these OMs are not applicable to the factual situation arising in the present case. When the applicant learnt that the official respondents have decided to review the already granted promotion to the applicant treating him junior to the private respondents, he has filed this OA seeking the reliefs as quoted above.
5. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their replies to which the applicant has also filed his rejoinders.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the impugned action of Respondent No.2 is contrary to settled principles of seniority in service jurisprudence as well as the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex court that once seniority is settled due to efflux of time, it cannot be unsettled, as in the instant case, seniority, which was settled in the year 2005 and reiterated till 31.08.2018 every year, cannot be unsettled after 14 years particularly when on the basis of such seniority, the applicant had already been given 3 (three) successive promotions. In support of above contention, reliance is placed on the judgment in the cases of Rajender Pratap Singh Yadav and others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others, H.S Vankami and others Vs State of Gujarat and others, Rabindra Nath Vs UOI, 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 11 Pavitharam Vs State of Kerala and others, B.S Bajwa and another Vs State of Punjab, Chandigarh Administration and another Vs Jagjit Singh Kaur. 6.1 Learned counsel also drew our attention to judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of UOI and others Vs Sanjay Kumar and Ajay, dated 13.03.2023, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has set aside the alteration of the seniority list after the lapse of more than 5 years by the department. 6.2 Learned counsel also argued that the private respondents after acceptance of their successive promotions to STS and JAG (OG) without demure as well as after a lapse of considerable time of more than 11 years of their joining the service, while taking shelter of DoP&T's OMs dated 08.08.2013 & 09.01.2014, and Rule 16 of CSE Rules of 2003 had represented to the respondent No. 2 for the first time in the year 2016 for re-determination of their inter-se seniority en-bloc above the applicant. Whereas the private respondents fully acquiesced with their seniority position vis-à-vis seniority of the applicant, since the beginning of joining the service and they never objected for more than a period of 11-12 years, the principles of estoppel prevented them from challenging the same at such a belated stage and the representations of the private respondents were not sustainable and were liable to be rejected on account of delay and laches.
6.3 Learned counsel further contended that the seniority of the applicant, which stood duly settled in the year 2005, has never been 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 12 challenged by the private respondents before any competent Court or Tribunal. In absence of any judicial order quashing such settled seniority or directing its revision, the respondents could not have altered the same so as to place the private respondents above the applicant.
6.4 Learned counsel also argued that the officers from the Reserve list cannot be granted retrospective seniority from the date they were not borne in the Cadre, as an officer cannot be granted seniority prior to his/her birth in the cadre adversely affecting the seniority of another officer who had been appointed before him. It is a settled law that a person is disentitled to claim seniority from a date he/she was not borne in the service is further emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgments in K. Meghachandra Singh and Ors. v Nigam Siro and others (2020), K. R. Babu vs State of Kerala (2018). Thus, the action of the respondents to unsettle the settled seniority of the applicant treating him junior to the private respondents on the basis of marks obtained by them in CSE-2003 is contrary to the judgment dated 12.7.2023 in WP 14908/23 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pallavi Gupta (supra) as well as judgment dated 20.2.2024 in WP No.410/24 in case of K. S. Arun Sabhapathy vs The Registrar General passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras(Annexure A-19).
6.5 Learned counsel also submitted that the issue of granting seniority to the private respondents over and above the applicant 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 13 on the basis of marks secured by them in CSE-2003 is also squarely covered by the judgment dated 19.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Bhupendra Sharma vs UOI, which was subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Judgement dated 12.7.2021 in SLP (C) No.5164/21. Further, Review Petition No.62/22 was also dismissed vide judgment dated 10.2.2022 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the judgment dated 19.02.2020 has attained finality.
6.6 Further it is contended by the learned counsel that in the instant case, the settled seniority is proposed to be unsettled solely relying on DoP&T's OM dated 08.08.2013, which itself does not provide for interpolation of the reserve list candidate over and above the main list candidate and also the aforesaid OM does not indicate specifically for its retrospective operation more particularly about the case in which seniority has been settled before issuance of the said OM. In this regard, DOP&T had clarified that the OMs are applicable from the date of their issuance and have prospective effect unless specifically provided therein for retrospective effect. Thus, the action of the concerned administrative authority for redetermination of the seniority between the candidate selected from the main list and reserve list by interpolating as per aggregate marks of the concerned candidates, based on DoP&T's OM dated 08.08.2013, has been set aside by different benches of this Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Courts.
2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 14 6.7 Learned counsel also argued that the order dated 4.1.2019 has also not been approved by the Cadre Controlling Authority till date. Therefore, the Order dated 4.1.2019 and subsequent impugned orders are bad in law being passed by the incompetent authority. STAND OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 having regard to reply affidavit filed on behalf of them has made preliminary submission/objection by stating that the results of the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2003 (Main List), the applicant was recommended for appointment to the Central Services Group 'A'. The Govt. of India Press Note dated 07.05.2004 (Annexure R/1) with regard to Civil Services (Main) Examination 2003 states that a total number of 413 candidates were recommended for appointment which included 184 General (including 02 physically challenged candidates), 129 OBC (including 02 physically challenged candidates), 67 Scheduled Castes and 33 Scheduled Tribes candidates. The numbers of vacancies reported for Central Services Group 'A' were 231 which included 111 General, 61 OBC, 39 SC and 20 ST vacancies. The Press Note further stated that in accordance with Rule 16(4) & (5) of the CSE Rules of 2003 (as amended), the Commission is maintaining a Consolidated Reserve List of 88 candidates which included 44 General, 36 OBC, 06 SC and 02 ST candidates ranking in order of merit below the last recommended candidate under respective category. The applicant in the present OA, with Roll No. 265650, was placed at 411th 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 15 position in the CSE 2003 Main List (Annexure R/2). The Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India vide letter No. 3(1)/02-D (Appts) dated 10.01.2005 (Annexure R/3) offered the applicant a Group 'A' Junior Time Scale post in the Indian Defence Estates Service. The applicant reported for training to the National Institute of Defence Estates Management (NIDEM) on 28.03.2005 (Annexure R/4). Subsequently, as per Press Note of January 2005 (Annexure R/5), the Merit Order List of recommended candidates (Supplementary List) was given, wherein it was mentioned that the Commission has since recommended 44 candidates to fill up remaining posts based on CSE 2003.In the said Supplementary List, Smt. Shalini Pandey (Respondent No. 3) was at Rank No. 1, and Shri Burande Kedar Prasad (Respondent No. 4) was at Rank No. 21.The MoD vide letters dated 13.05.2005 offered them Group 'A' JTS posts in IDES (Annexures R/6 & R/7). Both officers joined IDES on 26.05.2005 and 30.05.2005 respectively. In the Civil List of IDES published on 31.12.2005 (Annexure R/8), the following seniority was assigned:
Date of Sl. Name of CSE Batch Date of Date of Date of Present Assumption No. Officer Year Year Birth Appointment Posting Status of Duties Amit 1 2003 2004 2005/79* 20.06.2005 28.03.2005 Probationer 28.03.2005 Kumar Shalini 2 2003 2004 2005/78* 17.09.2005 26.05.2005 Probationer 26.05.2005 Pandey Burande 3 Kedar 2003 2004 2005/78* 27.02.2005 30.05.2005 Probationer 30.05.2005 Prasad Upon completion of probation, all three officers were substantively appointed in JTS w.e.f. 20.11.2008 vide MoD order dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure R/9). Based on DPC 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 16 recommendations, the following officers were promoted from JTS to STS vide DGDE letter dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure R/10):
1. Amit Kumar (Applicant)
2. Shalini Pandey (Respondent No.3)
3. Burande Kedar Prasad (Respondent No.4) Thereafter, based on DPC recommendations, the following officers were promoted to JAG vide DGDE letter dated 07.01.2016 (Annexure R/11):
1. Amit Kumar (Applicant)
2. Shalini Pandey (Respondent No.3)
3. Burande Kedar Prasad (Respondent No.4) Based on ISC recommendations for vacancy year 2017-18, the following officers were placed in NFSG of JAG vide DGDE letter dated 06.02.2018 (Annexure R/12):
Sl.
Name Date of NFSG
No.
1 Amit Kumar (Applicant) 01.04.2017
2 Shalini Pandey (Respondent No.3) 01.04.2017
3 Burande Kedar Prasad (Respondent No.4) 01.04.2017
The earlier recommendations of the Internal Selection Committee (in short 'ISC') for grant of placement of the 03 officers of 2004 batch in NFSG of JAG were reviewed by the Review ISC held during the year 2023, and as per the recommendations of the aforesaid Review ISC, all these 03 officers have been granted placement in NFSG of JAG vide DGDE letter dated 17.04.2023 (Annexure R/13) as given below:
2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 17 Name Earlier Date Revised Date Shalini Pandey 01.04.2017 01.01.2017 Burande Kedar Prasad 01.04.2017 01.01.2017 Amit Kumar 01.04.2017 01.01.2017 7.1 Learned counsel also submitted that one Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma [Rank No. 13 of the Supplementary List, Civil Services (Main) Examination 2003] and Shri Kartikaye Mathur [Rank No. 5 of the Supplementary List, Civil Services (Main) Examination 2003] filed O.A. No.465/2013 and O.A. No. 446/2013 before this Tribunal and as per Order/Judgment dated 06.09.2013 (Annexure R/14) in O.A. No. 465/2013 and M.A. No. 312/2013, the prayer of the applicant Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma was to:-
"a. Direct the UPSC to publish a consolidated merit list as per marks obtained by the candidates in the Civil Services (Main) Examination 2003 and in accordance with para number 2.1.1 of the DoPT's OM No. 20011/1/2008-Estt (D) dated 11.11.2010 within a specified period of 15 days.
b. Direct the DoPT to fix my inter-se seniority on the basis of the 'Consolidated Merit List' as given by UPSC as (i) above within a period of 15 days.
c. Direct the DoPT to convey the inter-se seniority to the Cadre Controlling Authority i.e. Office of Controller General of Accounts, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, 7th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi - 110003.
7.2 In the said Order/Judgment dated 06.09.2013, this Tribunal noted that the counsel appearing for DoP&T, Respondent No. 2 therein, informed that the grievances of the applicants therein have already been redressed as their Cadre Controlling Authority had been instructed for fixation of seniority in order of marks obtained by the candidate. Accordingly, as per advice of the Commission, necessary directions to all the Cadre Controlling Authorities had 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 18 been issued for fixation of seniority in the order of marks obtained by the candidates vide Order dated 08.08.2013. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that since the only grievance of the applicants with regard to fixation of their inter-se seniority on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates, as provided by the DoP&T through OM No.41019/18/97-Estt(B) dated 13.06.2000 (Annexure R/15), and the Cadre Controlling Authorities have now been instructed to fix seniority as per marks obtained by the candidates, nothing survives to be decided by this Court. Hence, the said OA was disposed of by this Tribunal with direction to the Respondents to fix the seniority of the applicants as per the marks secured by them in the Examination, meaning thereby that they should be placed above the candidates, who have secured less than 1195 marks. In compliance of the Order/Judgment dated 06.09.2013 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.465/2013 (supra), the DoP&T issued OM No.22012/15/2013-AIS(I) dated 08.08.2013 (Annexure R/16) regarding the issue relating to fixation of rank of the candidates allocated service on the basis of CSE Main List and Reserve List, with the following instructions:-
"2. It is informed that the CCAs may like to assign inter-se seniority of the candidates recommended on the basis of a particular service through the Civil Services Examination and also allocated to a particular service, on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by the candidate. The merits of the candidates for determining inter-se seniority may be determined based on the aggregate marks of the candidates revealed by the UPSC. In case of tie (equal marks), the UPSC may be consulted directly to resolve the issue.
3. The statement of marks of the candidates may be sought from the UPSC."
7.3 Subsequently, DoP&T issued another OM dated 09.01.2014 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 19 (Annexure R/17) stating that the statement of marks obtained by candidates of Civil Services Examination 2005 to 2015 (Main List) and CSE 2006 to 2011 (Reserve List) had been uploaded on the DoP&T website. Consolidated Orders on Seniority had been issued by DoP&T earlier also vide OM dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure R/18), wherein in the "Consolidated Compilation of Instructions and Guidelines on Seniority" (Annexure R/19), Para 2.1.1 provides clarification regarding appointment from Reserve Panel at a later date, stating that the inter-se seniority of candidates from Reserve Panel will be fixed as per consolidated merit given by UPSC. The said guidelines also give clarification regarding seniority of Direct Recruits, stating that the relative seniority of all direct recruits is determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for such appointment on the recommendations of the UPSC or other selecting authority, persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection being senior to those appointed as a result of subsequent selection. The relative seniority that used to be determined earlier according to the date of confirmation and not the original order of merit (in cases where confirmation was in an order different from the order of merit indicated at the time of their appointment), in accordance with the general principles of seniority, has been discontinued (OM No. 20011/5/90-Estt(D) dated 04.11.1992) (Annexure R/20). Thus, in compliance of the aforementioned OMs, the matter was taken up with DoP&T through MoD vide this Directorate General Note dated 02.08.2016 (Annexure R/21) for assigning of seniority based on the results of 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 20 CSE 2003 to CSE 2016, and it was requested that the aggregate marks obtained by the said candidates in respective Civil Services Examination be confirmed. As such, from the records, it is seen that Smt. Shalini Pandey (Respondent No.3) and Shri Burande Kedar Prasad (Respondent No.4), who were appointed to IDES through the reserve list of CSE-2003, vide their letters dated 02.06.2016 (Annexures R/22 & R/23) had also represented for fixing of their inter-se seniority in the IDES as per instructions issued vide DoP&T's OM No.20011/1/2008-Estt (D) dated 11.11.2010 in the order of merit. Thus, considering the aforesaid representations of the officers together with the instructions contained in DoP&T OM dated 08.08.2013, the marks of the concerned candidates appointed to IDES through main list and reserve list from CSE-2003 onwards were ascertained from the DoP&T, and the aggregate marks of candidates appointed to IDES through CSE-2003 are as under:
Aggregate Allocation S. No. Name of Officer Roll No. Marks in CSE Through 2003 1 Amit Kumar 265650 1103 Main List 2 Shalini Pandey 211226 1200 Reserve List 3 Burande Kedar Prasad 1960 1192 Reserve List 7.4 Learned counsel thus argued that it can be seen from the above given facts that the aggregate marks of Smt. Shalini Pandey (Respondent No. 3) and Shri Burande Kedar Prasad (Respondent No. 4) are higher than the aggregate marks of the applicant and, therefore, in terms of the instructions contained in DoP&T OM dated 08.08.2013, as well as the Order/Judgment dated 06.09.2013 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 21 of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 465 of 2013 (supra), the inter-se seniority of Smt. Shalini Pandey (Respondent No. 3), Shri Burande Kedar Prasad (Respondent No. 4) and the applicant has been assigned. Accordingly, the inter-se seniority of the above-named three officers of CSE-2003 (batch year 2004), as well as the inter-se seniority of officers up to CSE-2016, was assigned as per their aggregate marks by the Directorate General, Defence Estates (DGDE) during September, 2018 as per the given details.
7.5 Learned counsel also submitted that thereafter, the draft Civil List was circulated on 11.09.2018 (Annexure R/24) to all officers of the Department including the officers whose inter-se seniority was assigned on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by the candidate in the Civil Services Examination w.e.f. 2003 to 2016. Objections, if any, were invited to the draft Civil List from all officers. After disposal of representations so received, the Civil List of IDES was finalized and circulated on 07.01.2019 (Annexure R/25). The applicant also gave a representation dated 25.09.2018 against redetermination of his inter-se seniority. The said representation was duly considered and disposed of by the Directorate General Defence Estates vide a reasoned letter dated 04.01.2019 (Annexure R/26). As a consequence of assigning of inter-se seniority on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in the Civil Services Examinations, the inter-se seniority of concerned officers in subsequent promotional grades i.e. STS and JAG needed to be revised by Review DPCs. Accordingly, a proposal for convening the meeting of Review DPC for review of the promotion of the officers of 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 22 2004 batch to STS grade was initiated by the Department on 18.10.2023 (Annexure R/27). In the said proposal, it was informed that the inter-se seniority of officers appointed to IDES through CSE-2003 onwards has been assigned on the basis of their aggregate marks in respective CSEs. It is further contended that while the proposal for a Review DPC for the vacancy years 2010-11 and 2011-12 for consideration of eligible officers in JTS of IDES for promotion to STS due to assigning of inter-se seniority on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by the candidates, which was sent to MoD on 18.10.2023, was under process, the present OA was filed by the applicant, wherein it has been stated that there is proposed action on the part of the official respondents for review of DPC proceedings for change of inter-se seniority qua the private respondents, in which this Tribunal vide its order/judgment dated 09.11.2024 has directed that the proposal to hold Review DPC shall be kept in abeyance.
7.6 Learned counsel also submitted that the Indian Defence Estates Service (IDES) is an organized Group 'A' Central Service under the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence. Recruitment to the Service is on the basis of the Civil Services Examination conducted annually by the UPSC. The Director General, Defence Estates (DGDE) is the HOD of the Organisation/Department, who approves/finalises Civil List of IDES officers of the Organisation.
7.7 Learned counsel reiterated that in accordance with the 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 23 order/judgment of this Tribunal dated 06.09.2013 issued in OA No.465/2013, M.A. No. 312/2013 (titled Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma Vs UOI & Ors.) and instructions contained in DoP&T's OMs dated 08.08.2013 and 09.01.2014, the inter-se seniority of applicant vis-a-vis the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4, who were appointed to IDES through main list and reserve list of the Civil Services Examination (CSE)-2003, has been assigned on the basis of their aggregate marks. Hence, there is no irregularity or illegality in assigning the inter-se seniority of the applicant vis-a-vis the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4, since the applicant in the CSE-2003 had got 1103 marks whereas Respondent No. 3, namely, Smt. Shalini Pandey had got 1200 marks and Respondent No. 4, namely, Shri Burande Kedar Prasad had got 1192 marks. Further, the representation dated 25.09.2018 of the applicant against the inter- se seniority position assigned to him on the basis of his aggregate marks had been duly considered and disposed of by way of a speaking and reasoned letter dated 04.01.2019. The applicant had thereafter given another representation on 18.01.2019.Further, the Civil List of IDES officers for the year 2019 onwards inter-alia reflecting the inter-se seniority of concerned officers, have been finalized after following due process and therefore, there is no irregularity in the same.
7.8 Learned counsel further submitted that in accordance with the instructions contained in DoP&T's OMs dated 08.08.2013 & 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 24 09.01.2014, the inter-se seniority of all the officers appointed to IDES through CSE-2003 onwards has been assigned on the basis of their aggregate marks and thereafter the draft Civil List of IDES officers as on 01.09.2018 was circulated vide letter dated 11.09.2018 to all concerned officers besides uploading the same on the DGDE website. In the said letter dated 11.09.2018, it was clearly stated that the inter-se seniority of IDES officers recruited through CSE 2003 onwards has been re-fixed on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by them in the CSE conducted by UPSC in accordance with the instructions contained in DoP&T's OM dated 08.08.2013 and all officers were also asked to submit their objections, if any. The applicant gave a representation dated 25.09.2018 wherein he stated that no distinction seems to have been made in respect of cases involving seniority having been already settled prior to publication of DoP&T's OM dated 08.08.2013 and cases post publication of referred DoP&T's OM in the revised draft list. The applicant further stated that a plain reading of the DoP&T's O.M. dated 08.08.2013 demonstrates that it is in the nature of an executive/advisory instruction and does not create any mandatory obligation upon the Cadre Controlling Authority to undertake wholesale re-fixation of seniority in a manner contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence and that the said O.M. does not expressly provide for retrospective operation and in the absence of clear language conferring retrospective effect, the said O.M. must be construed as prospective in operation, consistent with the settled principle that executive 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 25 instructions ordinarily operate prospectively unless expressly or by necessary implication made retrospective. Consequently, like other DoP&T instructions relating to seniority which preserve existing vested or settled positions, the said O.M. cannot lawfully be invoked to reopen or unsettle seniority that had already attained finality after long acceptance and acted-upon implementation. The representation was duly considered and disposed of by Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 04.01.2019,and only thereafter, the Civil List of IDES officers as on 01.09.2018 was finalized and circulated to all officers vide letter dated 07.01.2019. Therefore, another representation dated 18.01.2019 of the applicant on the same issue on similar grounds as his earlier representation dated 25.09.2018 was not relevant, as the Civil List had already been finalized and circulated on 07.01.2019. Besides, from available records, it appears that another representation dated 24.07.2020 of the applicant does not appear to have been received, and letter dated 29.07.2022 was only a DO letter addressed to the then Principal Director, Defence Estates, Southern Command, Pune. Thereafter, the applicant gave one more representation dated 02.09.2024 against unsettlement of settled seniority and requested to restore his original seniority and to expedite the pending promotion to the next higher grade. While examining the aforesaid representation, it has been observed that the representation of the applicant so far as it relates to his seniority, was already considered and disposed of earlier and communicated to him vide letter dated 04.01.2019 and also, the court orders/judgments cited by him in the representation 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 26 were not applicable in his case because the facts and circumstances attached to those litigations were different from his case. 7.9 Learned counsel emphatically argued that the inter-se seniority of the applicant was assigned in accordance with the instructions of DoP&T and there is no irregularity or illegality in the same. Even then, the representation dated 02.09.2024 of the applicant was again disposed of by Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 11.09.2024. It is emphasised by the learned counsel that the inter-se seniority of the applicant vis-a-vis Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 was assigned on the basis of their aggregate marks in CSE-2003. The promotion to STS and JAG of the 2004 batch officers is to be reviewed. The Department has therefore already submitted a proposal to MoD on 18.20.2023 for convening a meeting of Review DPC for vacancy years 2010-11 and 2011-12 for consideration of eligible officers in JTS of the IDES for promotion to STS and said proposal is still under process, whereas this Tribunal vide order dated 09.11.2024passed in this matter has directed that the proposal to hold Review DPC shall be kept in abeyance. 7.10 Learned counsel also submitted that the representation dated 25.09.2018 of the applicant was against determination of his seniority on the basis of his aggregate marks in CSE-2003 and the aforesaid representation has since been disposed of by the Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 04.01.2019 after due consideration and this OA has been filed by the applicant on 18.10.2024 challenging the aforesaid letter dated 04.01.2019, 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 27 which is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides that the Tribunal shall not admit an application in a case where a final order has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made within one year from the date on which such final order has been made. 7.11 Learned counsel also submitted that the judgments on which reliance is placed by the applicant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
CONTENTIONS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT NOS.3 & 4
8. Learned counsel appearing for private respondent nos.3 and 4 raised a preliminary objection that the instant OA filed by the applicant is hopelessly barred by limitation and the applicant wrongly stated in Para-3 of the OA that the OA is within the limitation period as prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Section 21 provides that the Tribunal shall not admit an application unless it is filed within one year from the date of the final order. It is submitted that the representation of the applicant was duly disposed of by respondent no. 2 vide order dated 04.01.2019. By the said order, the applicant's representation was rejected and it was categorically held that private respondent nos. 3 and 4 are senior to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant ought to have approached this Tribunal on or before 04.01.2020. Repeated representations after categorical rejection of the first representation do not give rise to a fresh cause of action. In support of above contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 28 Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Pyarimohan Samantaray & Ors., reported in (1977) 3 SCC 396, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that repeated representations after rejection of an earlier representation do not create a fresh cause of action. Further, in Union of India vs. S.S. Kothiyal & Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 682, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the first representation is rejected, the aggrieved person must approach the Court without delay, and repeated representations do not extend limitation.
8.1 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant was posted as Deputy Director General (Admin), Directorate General Defence Estate, under respondent no. 2, and was in charge of administrative and personnel matters of the Indian Defence Estate Service (IDES) cadre from May, 2022 to December, 2024. After assuming the said post, he sought to reopen a settled seniority issue. The applicant has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands and has concealed material facts and documents.
8.2. Learned counsel also gave reply on merit of this case by submitting that the UPSC vide notification dated 07.12.2002 (Annexure R/1) issued a notification to conduct the Civil Services Examination, 2003, and vide the same notification, 18.05.2003 was fixed as the date for holding the Preliminary Examination. Along with Exam Notice No.4/2003 for Civil Services Examination, 2003, the Rules of Examination, namely, the Rules of Examination for Civil Services Examination, 2003 were also notified 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 29 (Annexure R/2). Rule 16(1) of the said Rules provided that after interview, the candidates would be arranged by the Commission in the order of merit as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate in the Main Examination, which reads as under:
"16 (1) After interview, the candidates will be arranged by the Commission in the order of merit as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate in the main examination. Thereafter, the Commission shall, for the purpose of recommending candidates against unreserved vacancies, fix a qualifying mark (hereinafter referred to as 'general qualifying standard') with reference to the number of unreserved vacancies to be filled up on the basis of the main examination. For the purpose of recommending reserved category candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes against reserved vacancies, the Commission may relax the general qualifying standard with reference to number of reserved vacancies to be filled up in each of these categories on the basis of the Main Examination.
Provided that the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes who have not availed themselves of any of the concessions or relaxations in the eligibility or the selection criteria, at any stage of the examination and who after taking into account the general qualifying standards are found fit for recommendation by the Commission shall not be recommended against the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. .....
(4) While recommending the candidates, the Commission shall, in the first instance, take into account the total number of vacancies in all categories. This total number of recommended candidates shall be reduced by the number of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes who acquire merit at or above the fixed general qualifying standard without availing themselves of any concession or relaxation in the eligibility or selection criteria in terms of the proviso to sub-rule (1).
Along with this list of recommended candidates, the Commission shall also declare a consolidated reserve list of candidates which will include candidates from general and reserved categories ranking in order of merit below the last recommended candidate under each category. The number of candidates in each of these categories will be equal to the number of Reserved Category candidates who were included in the first list without availing any relaxation or concession in eligibility or selection criteria as per proviso to sub-rule (1). Amongst the reserved categories, the number of candidates from each of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class categories in the reserve list will be equal to the respective number of vacancies reduced initially in each category.
(5) The candidates recommended in terms of the provisions of sub- 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 30 rule (4), shall be allocated by the Government to the services and where certain vacancies still remain to be filled up, the Government may forward a requisition to the Commission requiring it to recommend, in order of merit, from the reserve list, the same number of candidates as requisitioned for the purpose of filling up the unfilled vacancies in each category."
8.3 Learned counsel submitted that respondent nos.3 and 4, along with the applicant herein, being duly qualified to appear in the Civil Services Examination, 2003, appeared in the said examination. The respondent nos. 3 and 4, along with the applicant, cleared the Preliminary Examination and thereafter all three duly appeared for the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2003, which was conducted in the months of October and November, 2003. After successfully clearing the Civil Services (Main) Examination, respondent nos. 3 and 4 along with the applicant appeared for the Civil Services Personality Test and Interview conducted in the months of April- May, 2004. The result of Civil Services Examination, 2003 was declared in two tranches. The first tranche of the result was declared on 07.05.2004 (Annexure R/3) and a total of 413 candidates belonging to all categories and multiple services were declared successful. The second tranche of the result was declared on 13.01.2005 (Annexure R/4), wherein 44 candidates belonging to all categories and multiple services were declared successful. Thereafter, the UPSC published its Annual Report pertaining to Civil Services Examination, 2003 (Annexure R/5), in which it was reported that a total of 457 candidates were declared successful and the result was declared in two tranches.
8.4 Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant herein, 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 31 belonging to Scheduled Tribe category, was declared successful in the first tranche of the result with total marks of 1103 and was placed at Serial No. 411 in the first tranche of the result. The respondent nos. 4 and 3 herein, belonging to General Category, were declared successful in the Civil Services Examination, 2003. Respondent no. 4 secured 1192 marks and was placed at Serial No. 21 in the second tranche of the result and the respondent no. 3 secured 1200 marks and was placed at Serial No. 1 in the second tranche of the result. After publication of the second tranche of the result, UPSC ought to have issued a consolidated merit list as per Rule 16(4) and (5) of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2003 (amended) as in terms of Rule 16(4) and (5) of CSE Rules of 2003, the candidates securing higher marks are to be placed higher in merit irrespective of whether their names were declared successful in the first tranche or second tranche. As the respondent no.4 had secured 1192 marks and the last selected General Category candidate in the first tranche was placed at Serial No. 265 and had secured 1201 marks. Thus, if a consolidated merit list had been declared, the rank of respondent no. 4, who secured 1192 marks, would have been around 302, and the rank of respondent no. 3, who secured 1200 marks, would have been 269. Further, the rank of the applicant, who secured 1103 marks, would have been around
450.Thus, the rank of the applicant, respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4 would have been as under:
2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 32 Sl. No. in Total Rank in respective Name Marks consolidated tranche (CSE- merit list 2003) Amit Kumar (Applicant 411 (Tranche-I) 1103 450 herein) Shalini Pandey 1 (Tranche-II) 1200 269 (Respondent No. 3) Burande Kedar Prasad 21 (Tranche-II) 1192 302 (Respondent No. 4) Further, all the three candidates, after being declared successful, were allocated to the IDES. The Cadre Controlling Authority of the applicant herein and respondent nos. 3 and 4 is the Director General Defence Estates as per Rule 11 of the of the Indian Defence Estates Service Group 'A' Posts, Recruitment Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'IDES Rules, 2013') (Annexure R/6).
The induction level seniority is decided by the Director General Defence Estates for all incumbents, who join the service after allocation of the service. The said Recruitment Rules provide that seniority of Group 'A' officers shall be governed by the instructions issued by the Central Government.
8.5 Learned counsel also submitted that since the UPSC had not declared the consolidated merit list, the Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA) could not fix the seniority list and as such the seniority of the applicant and respondent nos. 3 & 4 was never settled till the year 2019.The applicant and respondent nos. 3 & 4 were promoted from time to time from Junior Time Scale (JTS) to Senior Time Scale (STS), and from Senior Time Scale (STS) to Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) together. The details are given in the table below:-
2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 33 Date of Sl. No. Post of Promotion Promotion
1. Senior Time Scale (STS) 31.03.2010
2. Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) 07.01.2016
3. Placement in JAG (SG) 06.02.2018 Since the UPSC had failed to release the consolidated merit list for CSE - 2003, the Cadre Controlling Authorities were not able to fix the seniority and, in these circumstances, many successful candidates of CSE - 2003 approached this Tribunal. One successful candidate, Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma (supra), who was declared successful in CSE - 2003 in the second tranche of the list declared on 13.01.2005 at Serial No. 13, having secured 1195 marks and who was allotted Indian Civil Accounts Service, filed OA No. 465/2013, titled Neeraj Kumar Sharma vs. Secretary UPSC & Ors. in which prayers are as under:-
"I. Direct the UPSC to publish a consolidated merit list as per the marks obtained by the candidates in the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2003 and in accordance with DoPT's OM No. 20011/1/2008-Estt.(D) dated 11thNovember, 2010, para 2.1.1, within a specified period of 15 days.
II. Direct the DoPT to fix my inter-se seniority on the basis of the consolidated merit list so given by UPSC [as at (i) above] within a period of 15 days.
III. Direct the DoPT to convey the inter-se seniority to the Cadre Controlling Authority, i.e., office of Controller General of Accounts, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, 7th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi - 110003."
8.6 Learned counsel also submitted that when the said matter was taken up for hearing, the DoP&T informed this Tribunal that the Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA) of the applicant therein had 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 34 been instructed for fixing the seniority in order of the marks obtained by the candidates. Further, the DoP&T submitted that, as per the advice of the UPSC, necessary directions had been issued to all Cadre Controlling Authorities (CCA) for fixation of seniority in order of marks obtained by the candidates vide letter dated 08.08.2013.Thereafter, this Tribunal disposed of the said matter vide Order/Judgment dated 06.09.2013 (Annexure R/7) with the direction to the respondents to fix the seniority of the applicant therein as per the marks secured by him in the examination, meaning thereby that he should be placed above the candidates who had secured less than 1195 marks.
8.7 Learned counsel also submitted that another successful candidate, Shri Kartikaye Mathur, who was declared successful in Civil Services Examination, 2003 in the second tranche of list declared on 13.01.2005 at Serial No. 5, having secured 1197 marks and who was allotted Indian Audit & Accounts Service, filed OA No. 466/2013, titled Kartikaye Mathur vs. Secretary UPSC & Ors. in which prayers are as under:-
"I. Direct the UPSC to publish a consolidated merit list as per the marks obtained by the candidate in the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2003 within a specified period of 15 days.
II. Direct the Department of Personnel & Training to fix my inter-se seniority as per DoPT OM No. 20011/1/2008-Estt.(D) dated 11th November, 2010 para 2.1.1, according to which the inter-se seniority of candidates nominated from reserve panel will be fixed as per consolidated merit given by UPSC/SSC/Recruiting Agency within a period of 15 days.
In the said case also, a similar order was passed that necessary directions to Cadre Controlling Authorities (CCA) had been issued 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 35 for fixation of seniority in order of marks obtained by the candidates by the Order/Judgment dated 06.09.2013 passed by this Tribunal in the said OA No. 466/2013 (Annexure R/8).
Counsel also submitted that Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma in OA No.465/2013 and Shri Kartikaye Mathur in OA No. 466/2013 were also declared successful in CSE - 2003 in the second tranche like respondent nos. 3 & 4. Further, their Cadre Controlling Authorities (CCA), in compliance of order dated 06.09.2013, issued seniority lists strictly according to marks obtained in Civil Services Examination, 2003 irrespective of whether their names were in the first tranche or second tranche of the result.
8.8 Learned counsel drew our attention to the fact that during the pendency of the said OA Nos. 465/2013 and 466/2013, the DoP&T issued an OM dated 08.08.2013 (Annexure R/9) directing all Cadre Controlling Authorities (CCA) to assign inter-se seniority of candidates recommended on the basis of a particular Civil Services Examination and allocated to a particular service on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by the candidate(s). Thereafter, another OM was issued on 09.01.2014 (Annexure R/10) clarifying that DoP&T had already issued directions to the CCA that inter-se seniority should be fixed according to marks obtained by the candidate in the Civil Services Examination. Thus, candidates obtaining higher marks would be senior to candidates obtaining lesser marks irrespective of date of joining as well as category to which they belong, and this principle has been settled since long.
2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 36 Learned counsel also submitted that DoP&T's OM dated 03.07.1986 (Annexure R/11) provides that relative seniority of all direct recruits is determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for such appointment on the recommendation of UPSC or other selecting authority. Further, the DoP&T vide OM dated 04.11.1992 (Annexure R/12) reiterated that the seniority of a person regularly appointed to a post according to rules would be determined by the order of merit indicated at the time of initial appointment and not according to the date of confirmation.
Further, DoP&T vide OM dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure R/13) again reiterated that the seniority of direct recruits is in the order of merit in which they are selected for appointment on the recommendations of UPSC or other selecting authority.
8.9 Learned counsel further submitted that after the orders/judgments in Neeraj Sharma (supra) and Kartikaye Mathur (supra), and in pursuance of DoP&T's OM dated 08.08.2013, whereby it was directed that the Cadre Controlling Authorities (CCA) should fix inter-se seniority strictly according to marks obtained in Civil Services Examination, 2003, the DoP&T declared the total aggregate marks of all successful candidates of Civil Services Examination, 2003 sometime in the year 2016 (Annexure R/16). Thus, when the total aggregate marks were made public, respondent nos.3 & 4 came to know that they had secured more marks than the applicant herein and that their Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA), i.e., IDES had not fixed the inter-se seniority as per merit. Respondent nos. 3 & 4, being aggrieved by the fact that a person securing lesser marks than 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 37 them had been placed above them in the Civil List, submitted a representation dated 02.06.2016 [Annexure R/17 (colly)] to the Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA), i.e., respondent no. 2. Similarly, other successful candidates belonging to the IDES cadre also submitted similar representations to respondent no.2 for fixation of seniority strictly according to the instructions issued by DoP&T as well as the aforesaid Orders/judgments of this Tribunal. Since the IDES released a Civil List for the year 2017 without fixing the seniority as per rules, respondent nos. 3 & 4 submitted a reminder dated 03.08.2017 challenging the draft Civil List of 2017 [Annexure R/18 (Colly.)].
Pursuant to the representations challenging the draft Civil List whereby the applicant was placed above respondent nos. 3 & 4 herein, the Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA) re-fixed the seniority of all IDES officers recruited through CSE - 2003 onwards, on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by them in the Civil Services Examination conducted by UPSC, in accordance with the instructions contained in DoP&T's OM dated 08.08.2013 and circulated to all vide Director General Defence Estates (DGDE) letter dated 11.09.2018, and a fresh Draft Civil List for the year 2018 was issued [Annexure R/20 (Colly)].
8.10 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant being aggrieved by the said Draft Civil List issued on 11.09.2018 submitting a representation dated 25.09.2018, which after considering was rejected by the official respondents vide detailed order dated 04.01.2019. The applicant herein duly accepted the order dated 04.01.2019 and did not challenge the same before any Court of law, 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 38 and, therefore, the order dated 04.01.2019 passed by respondent no. 2 has attained finality. Therefore, it is reiterated that the present application is hopelessly barred by limitation as it has been filed on 18.10.2024. Although after rejection of the aforesaid representation of the applicant, respondent no. 2 on 07.01.2019 (Annexure R/21) issued a final seniority list whereby the seniority for CSE - 2003 with respect to IDES batch of 2004 was finally settled for the first time. In the said list respondent nos. 3 & 4 were placed above the applicant herein.
8.11 The inter se seniority of subsequent batches of IDES officers was also fixed as per the total aggregate marks obtained by the officers in the UPSC Civil Services Examination of the respective year (Annexure: R/21). As such, it can be seen from the Civil List for IDES that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are placed above the applicant herein. The Civil List with settled seniority for Group 'A' IDES officers was published on 20.01.2020, in which Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were senior to the applicant herein. The draft Civil List invited objections, if any, and thereafter the final Civil List for seniority of Group 'A' IDES officers as on 01.03.2020 was published on 05.03.2020 after disposal of objections/representations so received, and in the said list Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were senior to the applicant. Similarly, another draft Civil List was published on 19.02.2021 reflecting the position of all IDES Group 'A' officers in the seniority list as on 01.01.2021, and again Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were senior to the applicant herein. The draft Civil List invited objections, if any, and after disposal of objections/representations so 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 39 received, the final Civil List for seniority of Group 'A' IDES officers as on 30.12.2021 was published on 31.12.2021. Further, another draft Civil List was published on 04.01.2022 reflecting the position of all IDES Group 'A' officers in the seniority list as on 01.01.2022, and again Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were senior to the applicant herein. The draft Civil List invited objections, if any, and after disposal of objections/representations so received, the final Civil List for seniority of Group 'A' IDES officers as on 01.12.2022 was published on 08.12.2022 confirming that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are senior to the applicant herein. The final Civil List published on 08.12.2022 was issued under the signature of the applicant herein after disposing of all representations so received. Similarly, another draft Civil List was published on 07.03.2023 reflecting the position of all Indian Defence Estates Service (IDES) Group 'A' officers in the seniority list as on 01.01.2023, and again Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were senior to the applicant herein. The draft Civil List invited objections, if any, and after disposal of objections/representations so received, the final Civil List for seniority of Group 'A' IDES officers as on 01.06.2023 was published on 20.06.2023 confirming that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are senior to the applicant herein. Similarly, another draft Civil List was published on 26.04.2024 reflecting the position of all IDES Group 'A' officers in the seniority list as on 01.01.2024, and again Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were senior to the applicant herein. The draft Civil List invited objections, if any, and after disposal of objections/representations so received, the final Civil List for seniority of Group 'A' IDES officers as on 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 40 01.10.2024 was published on 25.10.2024 confirming that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are senior to the applicant herein [Annexure R/22 (Colly.)].
8.12 Learned counsel also submitted that on the basis of settled seniority, the Competent Authority vide order dated 02.08.2023 granted Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the applicant. In the said order, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are senior to the applicant (Annexure R/23). Further, it is submitted that Non-Functional Upgradation is granted after fulfilling the prescribed eligibility criteria and promotional norms including the "benchmark" for upgradation to a particular grade pay, in accordance with DoP&T O.M. dated 24.04.2009. It is also submitted that NFU is granted to Organized Group 'A' Service officers in Levels 12, 13, 14 and 15 who are otherwise eligible and fulfil the eligibility conditions for promotion, including completion of prescribed eligibility service in the respective feeder grades, as on the crucial date of eligibility for promotion to the above grades, but have not been granted promotion to these grades. 8.13 The Government of India vide notification dated 18.02.2014 (Annexure R/25) fixed the seniority of Indian Civil Accounts Service after following the O.M. dated 08.08.2013 and order dated 06.09.2013 passed in Neeraj Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India (supra). Further, vide order dated 21.07.2021 (Annexure R/26), the Government of India issued the revised seniority list of DANIPS Cadre following the O.M. dated 08.08.2013. 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 41
9. The applicant has filed rejoinders to the replies filed by the respondents refuting the same and reiterating the averments made in the OA.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings placed on record as well as the judgments on which reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant and the written submissions filed by the parties.
ANALYSIS
11. It emerges from the records that the applicant, Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4, all appeared in the CSE - 2003 for vacancies in various All India Services (AIS) & Central Group 'A' Services and they were ultimately allocated to the Indian Defence Estates Service (IDES) cadre. The result of the CSE - 2003 was declared in two tranches, namely, the first tranche on 07.05.2004 for 413 vacancies and the second tranche for 44 vacancies on 13.01.2005. Admittedly, the applicant was declared successful in the first tranche, whereas Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were declared successful in the second tranche/reserve list. It is undisputed position that the applicant secured 1103 marks, Respondent No.3 secured 1200 marks, and Respondent No.4 secured 1192 marks in the said examination. Despite being from different tranches of the same examination, all three officers joined the same service, namely, IDES. For several years after induction, the seniority position of the batch was not finally settled and all concerned officers, including the applicant and private respondents, were 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 42 promoted together from Junior Time Scale to STS, thereafter to JAG, and further placement grades on common dates. Admittedly, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted representations in the years 2016 and 2017 seeking refixation of inter se seniority on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in the examination. Thereafter, a Draft Civil List dated 11.09.2018 was circulated revising the inter se seniority of officers recruited through CSE-2003 onwards on the basis of marks obtained. The applicant objected to the said Draft Civil List by representation dated 25.09.2018. We find that the result of the said CSE-2003, corresponding to the total number of vacancies advertised, was declared in two tranches. In the first tranche, results against 413 vacancies were declared on 07.05.2004, whereas in the second tranche, results against the remaining 44 vacancies were subsequently declared on 13.01.2005. Admittedly, the applicant's said representation was rejected by order dated 04.01.2019. Thereafter, a final Civil List dated 07.01.2019 was issued placing Respondent Nos.3 and 4 above the applicant. Subsequently, draft/final Civil Lists for the years 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 consistently reflected Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as senior to the applicant, had been issued by the official respondents. Learned counsel also submitted that the final Civil List dated 08.12.2022 was issued under the signature of the applicant while he was holding an administrative position. 11.1 It is also an admitted position that NFU to SAG was granted vide order dated 02.08.2023 to the applicant as well as Respondent 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 43 Nos. 3 and 4, wherein Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were shown senior to the applicant. It is admitted by the private respondents themselves that the Cadre Controlling Authority revised seniority on the basis of DoP&T OMs dated 08.08.2013 and 09.01.2014, and not pursuant to any original consolidated merit list issued contemporaneously by UPSC in 2004-2005. As it is also an admitted position that no consolidated merit list of CSE-2003 was published by UPSC at the time of original declaration of results, and the alleged marks position became publicly relied upon only later. The present Original Application challenges the seniority position presently operating in the cadre and affecting consequential service benefits. The controversy revolves determination of inter se seniority between officers of the same examination year and same service, based on marks vis-à-vis tranche/result declaration status.
12. Keeping in view the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and the factual matrix of the present case, we find the core issue involved in these cases is that whether candidates recommended through Tranche-I and Tranche-II of the same Civil Services Examination are to be treated as one common batch for fixation of inter se seniority on the basis of aggregate merit/marks, or whether candidates of the second tranche/reserve list are necessarily junior to candidates of the first tranche irrespective of marks.
13. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that where appointments are made through a common selection process, 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 44 seniority of direct recruits is to follow the order of merit assigned by the recruiting authority unless statutory rules specifically provide otherwise. The instructions of DoP&T, on the subject, have consistently reiterated this principle. The DoP&T OMs dated 03.07.1986, 04.11.1992 and 11.11.2010, relied upon by the private respondents, uniformly state that seniority of direct recruits is to be determined according to the order of merit in which they are selected and not according to date of joining or fortuitous circumstances.
13.1 In the present case, admittedly, all three officers emerged from the same CSE-2003 selection cycle and were allocated to the same service. There is no statutory rule produced by the applicant mandating that officers declared in Tranche-II must automatically rank below all Tranche-I candidates. In absence of such rule, merit- based seniority is the legally sustainable norm. 13.2 At this stage, we deem it appropriate to refer the OM issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs at late as on 22.12.1959 which is on general principles for determining seniority of various categories of persons employed in Central Services, para 3 thereof provides that "1 Direct Recruit: Notwithstanding the provisions of para 3 above, the relative seniority of all direct recruits shall be determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for such appointment on the recommendations of the UPSC or other selecting authority, persons appointed as a result of subsequent selection. 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 45 13.3 Subsequently, by another OM issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 6.6.1973 by referring the aforesaid OM dated 22.12.1959 stated that as under: -
"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 these 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 now 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.
(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) of any granted by the Ministry/Departments, a candidates does not join within the stipulated time (which shall not exceed a period of nine months), the order of appointment should be 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 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 46 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 selected/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."
13.4 It is also apt to state that subsequently also the DoP&T vide OM dated 3.7.1986 issued consolidated orders on seniority in which also reiterated the aforesaid OM dated 22.12.1959, para 2,1 of which provides that :
"2.1 The relative seniority of all direct recruits is determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for such appointment on the recommendations of the U.P.S.C. or other selecting authority, persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection being senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection."
13.5. Subsequently, OM dated 4.11.1992 was also issued by the DoP&T in which having regard to para 47 (A) of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Class II Direct Recruits Engineering Officers Association vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in JT 1990 (2) SC 264, in which it has been held that once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation, provides in para 3 and 4 as under:-
2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 47 "3. The general principle of seniority mentioned above has been examined in the light of the judicial pronouncement referred to above and it has been decided that seniority may be delinked from confirmation as per the directive of the Supreme Court in para 47(A) of its judgement dated 2.5.90. Accordingly in mod1tlcation of the general principle 3, proviso to general principle 4 and proviso to general principle 5(i) contained in MHA (now DOPT) O.M. No.9/11/55-RPS dated 22.12.59, and para 2.3. of this Department O.M. đt. 3.7.86 (copy enclosed) it has been decided that seniority of a person regularly appointed to a post according to rule would be determined by the order of merit indicated at the time of initial appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation.
4. These orders shall take effect from the date of issue of this Office Memorandum. Seniority already determined according to the existing principles on the date of issue of these orders will not be reopened even if in some cases seniority has already been challenged or is in dispute and it will continue to be determined on the basis of the principles already existing prior to the date of issue of these orders.
13.6 We further deem it appropriate to refer the Recruitment Rules pertaining to Indian Defence Estates Service Group 'A' Posts, Recruitment Rules, 2013, which also provides in para 13 as follows:-
"13. Seniority. - (1) The seniority of the officer of the Service, appointed to any grade shall be governed by their relative seniority obtaining immediately before the date of commencement of these rules.
(2) The inter se seniority of the officer of the Service in a grade shall be determined as per instructions issued by the Central Government on the subject from time to time."
13.7 The UPSC issued a communiqué dated 07.01.2021 which is placed in the pleadings at Annexure R/24 wherein it was clarified that the reserve list of the UPSC is not a waiting list. The relevant portion of the communiqué is reproduced below:
"From the above stated process, it is clear that the Reserve List is not a waiting list. In fact, the reserve list is necessitated in a multi- service examination to allow candidates of reserved categories to choose a service of higher preference who qualify at or above general qualifying standard without availing any concession/relaxation at any stage of the examination. It is also necessary to state that all candidates who are recommended from the reserve list are placed en bloc below the last recommended candidate in merit position in each category of the main result."
2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 48 13.8 It is appropriate to state that the question of assigning of seniority arises only in relation to employees, who are similarly circumstanced, i.e., where they are functioning in the same rank, grade or cadre. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Station Masters' & Assistant Station Masters' Association v. General Manager, Central Railways, reported in AIR 1960 SC 384 observed as under:-
"7. .........So multifarious are the activities of the State that employment of men for the purpose of these activities has by the very nature of things to be in different departments of the State and inside each department, in many different classes. For each such class there are separate rules fixing the number of personnel of each class, posts to which the men in that class will be appointed, questions of seniority, pay of different posts, the manner in which promotion will be effected from the lower grades of pay to the higher grades, e.g., whether on the result of periodical examination or by seniority, or by selection or on some other basis -- and other cognate matters. Each such class can be reasonably considered to be a separate and in many matters independent entity with its own rules of recruitment, pay and prospects and other conditions of service which may vary considerably between one class and another. A member joins a particular class on recruitment; he leaves the class on retirement or death or dismissal, discharge, resignation or other modes of termination of service, or by joining another class of employees whether by promotion thereto or direct recruitment thereto on passing some examination or by selection in some other mode.
8. It is clear that as between the members of the same class the question whether conditions of service are the same or not may well arise. If they are not, the question of denial of equal opportunity will require serious consideration in such cases. Does the concept of equal opportunity in matters of employment apply, however, to variations in provisions as between members of different classes of employees under the State? In our opinion, the answer must be in the negative. The concept of equality can have no existence except with reference to matters which are common as between individuals, between whom equality is predicated. Equality of opportunity in matters of employment can be predicated only as between persons, who are either seeking the same employment, or have obtained the same employment. It will, for example, plainly make no sense to say that because for employment as professors of colleges, a higher University degree is required than for employment as teachers of schools, equality of opportunity is being denied. Similarly it is meaningless to say that unless persons who have obtained employment as school teachers, have the same chances of promotion as persons who have obtained employment 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 49 as teachers in colleges, equality of opportunity is denied. There is, in our opinion, no escape from the conclusion that equality of opportunity in matters of promotion, must mean equality as between members of the same class of employees, and not equality between members of separate, independent classes."
13.9 We also observe that where statutory provisions (including rules) or administrative instructions provide for the factors to be taken into consideration and the manner to be adopted in fixation of seniority, then, subject to such provisions or instructions being constitutional or otherwise valid, seniority has to be fixed in accordance with such provisions or instructions. Further, service rules very often provide that when recruitment takes place through selection or competitive examination, the inter se seniority of the recruited candidates should be determined on the basis of merit i.e. the results of the selection or examination. The scheme of the regulations disclose that seniority will have to be fixed in accordance with merit as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Mohan Lal Capoor, reported in AIR 1974 SC
87. 13.10 Learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) took us through the rationale of declaration of CSE result in two lists, the Main List and the Supplementary List. It was explained that respondent nos. 3 and 4 along with the applicant appeared in the Civil Services Preliminary and Main Examination followed by Personality Test and Interview which was conducted in the months of April-May, 2004. The result of Civil Services Examination, 2003 was declared in two tranches. The first tranche of the result was declared on 07.05.2004 for total of 413 candidates belonging to all 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 50 categories for multiple services. The second tranche result for 44 candidates was declared on 13.01.2005 for multiple services. The first tranche was published earlier, whereas, the second tranche, also termed as supplementary list or reserve list, was published later. The last candidate in Tranche-I had scored total marks of 972, whereas, the last candidate in Tranche-II had scored total marks of 1114. While declaring the result in the second tranche, no relaxation or reduction in merit was granted. The UPSC in its Annual Report published after Civil Services Examination, 2003 mentioned that a total of 457 candidates were declared successful and the result was declared in two tranches. Therefore, the result declared in two separate lists does not make the list separate. Supplementary / Reserve List, with whatever name it may be called, is not a waiting list and part and parcel of the consolidated list of 457 candidates for whom result has been declared in two parts, in first part for 413 candidates and in second part for 44 candidates. We are in agreement with the rational explained by Shri S.D. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General by referring to the Constitution Bench judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v Ramesh Ram and Others (2010) 7 SCC 234 for carrying out such an exercise for the adjustment of meritorious candidates of reserve category as they are entitled to higher service choice.
13.11 The applicant's contention is that that recommendation through Tranche-II necessarily makes those candidates junior. 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 51 Such contention is unsustainable unless the governing rules expressly create separate batches. Where reserve/select list candidates are drawn from the same examination and appointed against vacancies relatable to that very examination, they remain products of the same recruitment process. Mere later declaration of result does not automatically reduce merit status. In the present matter, Tranche-II arose from the same CSE-2003 Examination. The private respondents were not recruited through a subsequent examination year. They were allocated to IDES from the same examination stream. Therefore, treating them as members of the same batch for seniority purposes is rational and legally consistent. The mere fact that UPSC published results in two stages due to administrative exigencies cannot confer a permanent seniority advantage upon a lower-scoring candidate.
13.12 It can be seen that the aggregate marks of Smt. Shalini Pandey (Respondent No. 3) and Shri Burande Kedar Prasad (Respondent No. 4) are higher than the aggregate marks of the applicant, and in terms of the instructions contained in DoP&T OM dated 08.08.2013, as well as the Order/Judgment dated 06.09.2013 of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 465 of 2013 (supra), well settled and consistent position instructions by the DoP&T from the year 1959 onwards, the inter-se seniority of Smt. Shalini Pandey (Respondent No. 3), Shri Burande Kedar Prasad (Respondent No.
4) and the applicant has been assigned. The inter-se seniority of the above-named three officers of CSE-2003 (batch year 2004) and the inter-se seniority of officers of junior CSE batches was assigned as 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 52 per their aggregate marks by the Cadre Controlling Authority. The details of which are as under: -
Existing Name of the officer Roll Aggregate Allocation Batchwise inter se Batch wise No. Merit in through seniority re-fixed inter se CSE Main/Reserve on the basis of the seniority. List aggregate marks CSE-2003 1 Amit Kumar 265650 1103 Main List 3 2. Shalini Pandey 211226 1200 Reserve List 1
3. Burande Kedar 1960 1192 Reserve List 2 Prasad CSE-2004 1. Harendra Singh 80759 1145 Main List 3 2. Vivek Kumar 994 1202 Reserve List 1 3. Sharmistha Maitra 1044 1198 Reserve List 2 CSE-2005 (No candidate allocated to IDES) CSE-2006 1. Subrat Pal 7718 1179 Reserve List 1 CSE-2007 1. Meenakshi 657 1217 Reserve List 1 2. Neha Gupta 54949 1216 Reserve List 2 CSE-2008 1. S. Prabakaran 193061 1156 Reserve List 1 2. Promila Ailshwar 98669 1156 Reserve List 2 CSE-2009
1. Shreyas Maganbhai 33726 1131 Main List 1 Patel 2. Ompal Singh 185703 1079 Main List 8 3. Stephen P D 15824 1054 Main List 9 4. Rahul Anand Sharma 17224 1121 Reserve List 2
5. Pawar Vidhyadhar 3051 1117 Reserve List 3 Vasudeo 6. Jakir Hussain 127131 1115 Reserve List 4 7. Amit Kumar Mishra 4931 1114 Reserve List 5
8. Arvind Kumar 88568 1114 Reserve List 6 Dwivedi
9. Pramod Kumar 12516 1107 Reserve List 7 Singh CSE-2010
1. Nair Vineel 32561 1139 Main List 1 Satyanarayana 2. Mamta 337784 1073 Main List 7 3. Jyeti Kumar 20355 1117 Main List 6
4. M. Venka Narasimha 80222 1130 Reserve List 2 Reddy
5. Abhishek Mani 180503 1122 Reserve List 3 Tripathi 6. Vikash Kumar 137125 1121 Reserve List 4 7 Vinit Kumar 4289 1112 Reserve List 5 CSE-2011 1. B. Ajili Reddy 292488 1093 Main List 1 2. Divya S. 4325 1090 Main List 2 3. Harish Varma P 10725 1074 Main List 7 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 53 Existing Name of the officer Roll Aggregate Allocation Batchwise inter se Batch wise No. Merit in through seniority re-fixed inter se CSE Main/Reserve on the basis of the seniority. List aggregate marks 4. Abhijit Sanap 324239 1071 Main List 8 5. Harsha H E 239639 1059 Main List 10 6. Ajay Kumar 250805 1059 Main List 11 7. Varun Kalia 117329 1033 Main List 12 8. Lalrinpuii Hrahsel 317112 1021 Main List 14 13.13 We have also seen that this Tribunal has adjudicated the similar issue raised by the applicant in the present Original Application in the Original Applications No. 465/2013 and 466/2013, in that matter the DoP&T issued an OM dated 08.08.2013 directing all Cadre Controlling Authorities (CCA) to assign inter-se seniority of candidates recommended on the basis of a particular Civil Services Examination and allocated to a particular service on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by the candidate(s) and the position was further clarified vide OM dated 09.01.2014. In the present case, the applicant obtained lesser marks then private respondents; however, being selected in the first tranche, he joined service earlier. To assert his claim of inter se seniority over private respondents, the applicant places reliance on Rule 4(5) of the Indian Defence Estate Service (Group A) Rules, 1985 which deals with length of service rather than merit as criterion to fix inter se seniority, for facility of reference, the relevant Rule is quoted below:
"(1). The duty posts included in the various grades of the Service, their number and the scales of pay, as on the date of commencement of these Rules, shall be as specified in Schedule I. (2). After the commencement of these Rules, the authorised permanent strength of the duty posts in various grades shall be such as may, from time to time, be determined by the Government.
(3). The Government may make temporary additions to, 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 54 or deletions from, the strength of duty posts in various grades, as it may deem necessary from time to time.
(4). The Government may, in consultation with the Commission, include in the Service any post other than those specified in Schedule I, or exclude from the Service any post included in the said Schedule.
(5). The Government may, in consultation with the Commission, appoint an officer, whose post is included in the Service under subrule (4), to the appropriate grade of the Service, whether in a temporary or substantive capacity as may be deemed fit, and fix his seniority in the grade after taking into account his continuous regular service in the analogous grade."
(emphasis supplied) 13.14 In view of position explained supra, we are of the view that Rule 4 (5) does not deal with fixation of inter se seniority. How the seniority inter se is to be fixed is well defined in OMs of DOPT from the year 1959 onwards, DoP&T's OM dated 03.07.1986 provides that relative seniority of all direct recruits is determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for such appointment on the recommendation of UPSC or other selecting authority. Further, the DoP&T vide OM dated 04.11.1992 reiterated that the seniority of a person regularly appointed to a post according to rules would be determined by the order of merit indicated at the time of initial appointment and not according to the date of confirmation. DoP&T vide OM dated 11.11.2010 once again emphasised that the seniority of direct recruits is in the order of merit in which they are selected for appointment on the recommendations of UPSC or other selecting authority. The recruitment Rules of the Indian Defence Estate Service (Group A) were amended and notified on 17.1.2013 and Rule 13 (2) provides a specific provision to determine inter se seniority. For facility of 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 55 reference the relevant Rule is reproduced as follows: -
"The inter se seniority of the officers of the Service in a grade shall be determined as per instructions issued by the central government on the subject from time to time."
13.15 Further, Note 3 below Schedule IV of the Indian Defence Estates Service (Group A) Rules, 1985 reads as under:
"If an officer appointed to any post in the Service is considered for the purpose of promotion to the higher posts, all persons senior to him in the grade shall also be considered notwithstanding that they may not have rendered the requisite number of years of service."
(emphasis supplied) The aforesaid 'Note' ensures that merit-based ordering within a batch is preserved even if length of service varies in favour of inter-se junior officers. It is thus evident that the applicant's reliance on Rule 4(5) is misplaced and the seniority of Direct Recruits is to be determined on the basis of merit and not by length of service.
13.16 In compliance to the order dated 06.09.2013 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.465/2013 and OA No.466/2013 and DoP&T's OMs dated 08.08.2013 and 09.01.2014, the Cadre Controlling Authorities of all other Civil Services except IDES corrected and fixed the inter-se seniority of batches, who joined various services after clearing Civil Services Examination, 2003 onwards on the basis of merit, irrespective of whether the result was declared in Tranche-I or Tranche-II. For facility of reference, it would be apt to mention some services which fixed the inter se seniority of officers in pursuance to the DOPT OMs (supra) as under:
2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 56 UPSC Sr. Name of Seniority of Officers as per approved CSE No. Service Civil List Exam Inter-se Marks Result Name Seniority in Obtained Declared the Cadre Tranche-1 Smita Gopal 1218 1 (07.05.2004) Indian Audit & 1 2003 Tranche-1 Accounts Smriti 1210 2 (07.05.2004) Service Tranche-2 Kartikaye Mathur 1197 3 (13.01.2005) Jahangirbadashah Tranche-1 1166 4 Rasul Inamdar (07.05.2004) Neeraj Kumar Tranche-2 1195 1 Sharma (13.01.2005) Indian Civil Tranche-1 2 Accounts 2003 Subhash Chandra 1163 2 (07.05.2004) Service Yogesh Kumar Tranche-1 1107 3 Meena (07.05.2004) Tranche-2 Jagdeep Gupta 1194 2 (13.01.2005) Indian Tranche-2 3 Postal 2003 Sunil Sharma 1193 3 (13.01.2005) Service Tranche-1 Nirmal Singh 1104 4 (07.05.2004) 13.17 Further, even with respect to successful candidates selected in subsequent batches of Civil Services Examination (CSE), various Cadre Controlling Authorities (CCA) fixed inter-se seniority of the officers of the particular batch strictly in accordance with merit, i.e., aggregate marks obtained, irrespective of whether the result was published in Tranche-1 or Tranche-2 in accordance with DoP&T's OM dated 08.08.2013 and in compliance with order dated 06.09.2013 in OA No. 465/2013 passed by the learned CAT. It is profitable to quote those services: -
2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 57 Sr. Name of CSE Seniority of Officers as per No. Service Year approved civil list.
Result Inter-se
Name Marks
Declared Seniority
Puneet Sharma 1206 Tranche-1 1
Dhananjay Singh 1200 Tranche-2 2
Moina Benazir 1199 Tranche-2 3
Amit Gupta 1199 Tranche-2 4
Indian Defence
1 Accounts 2004 Ambarish
1197 Tranche-2 5
Service Barman
Murali Krishnan
1167 Tranche-2 6
S
Sandeep Thakur 1167 Tranche-2 7
T. Kabilan 1142 Tranche-1 8
Indian Defence Ganesh Kumar
1219 Tranche-2 1
2 Accounts 2006 Barnwal
Service Shyam Kumar 1157 Tranche-1 2
Ranjan Kumar
1185 Tranche-2 1
Mohanty
Manoj Kumar
Indian Railway 1185 Tranche-2 2
Pandey
3 Personnel 2006
Service Sidhu Ramana
1181 Tranche-2 3
Reddy
Ajay Kumar
1066 Tranche-1 4
Dixit
Eti Shukla 1245 Tranche-1 1
Roopal Prakash 1201 Tranche-2 2
Anubhav Kumar
1192 Tranche-2 3
Singh
Rajesh Ranjan 1190 Tranche-2 4
Indian Audit & Pushkar Kumar 1190 Tranche-2 5
4 Accounts 2006 Akash Goyal 1189 Tranche-2 6
Service Teg Singh 1163 Tranche-1 7
Shinde Uday
1161 Tranche-1 8
Madhavrao
Tsewang
1120 Tranche-1 9
Tharchin
Abhishek Singh 1091 Tranche-1 10
13.18 The same analogy is followed for other subsequent batches as well. In so far as Indian Defence Estate Service is concerned, the details of marks obtained by the candidates were obtained much later, hence, the issue of inter se seniority was decided later and inter se position of concerned parties in the civil list was determined later.
2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 58 The representation of applicant dated 25.09.2018, wherein, he stated that no distinction seems to have been made in respect of cases involving seniority having been already settled prior to publication of DoP&T's OM dated 08.08.2013 and cases post publication of referred DoP&T's OM in the revised draft list. The applicant further stated that DoP&T's O.M. dated 08.08.2013 demonstrates is in the nature of an executive/advisory instruction and does not create any mandatory obligation upon the Cadre Controlling Authority to undertake wholesale re-fixation of seniority in a manner contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence and that the said O.M. does not expressly provide for retrospective operation and in the absence of clear language conferring retrospective effect, the said O.M. must be construed as prospective in operation, consistent with the settled principle that executive instructions ordinarily operate prospectively unless expressly or by necessary implication made retrospective. Consequently, like other DoP&T instructions relating to seniority which preserve existing vested or settled positions, the said O.M. cannot lawfully be invoked to reopen or unsettle seniority that had already attained finality after long acceptance and acted-upon implementation. The contentions of applicant do not hold much grounds as the principle enunciated to fix inter se seniority even prior to DOPT OMs dated 22-11-1959 was merit in which the candidates have been selected for such appointment on the recommendation of UPSC or other selecting authority. This position has been consistent and reiterated in subsequent OMs 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 59 dated 6.6.1973, 7.2.1986, 3.7.1986 and 4.11.1992 of DOPT. In the DOPT OM dated 4.11.1992, it has been clearly laid down that seniority of a person regularly appointed to a post according to rule would be determined by the order of merit indicated at the initial appointment and not according to date of confirmation. Therefore, we are not convinced with the above mentioned argument of the applicant. We hold the view that the respondent Department has tried to correct the prevailing wrong and has acted as per rules, the illegality even though having continued for some time cannot be allowed to perpetuate for all times to come and to create a wrong precedent. It is seen that in all subsequent years and for other Central Group A Services where recruitment is through Civil Services Examination, the inter se seniority is based on the marks obtained in the examination and such statutory position has also been incorporated in the Recruitment Rules of the Indian Defence Estate Service (Group A) through amendment of RR on 17.1.2013. 13.19 Even assuming the applicant was shown above private respondents for some earlier period, an erroneous or tentative placement does not crystallize into an indefeasible right. The Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 689, reiterated that seniority must conform to law and not to mistaken administrative practice. Likewise, in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715, the Constitution Bench recognized that seniority principles must 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 60 rest on valid appointment and applicable rules, not on irregular assumptions. In compliance of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the DoP&T issued OM dated 4.11.1992, as referred above. Here, the record itself shows that for many years batch seniority was not finally settled; promotions were granted commonly.
13.20 It has further come on record that, since the UPSC did not publish a consolidated merit list for CSE - 2003, the respective Cadre Controlling Authorities were facing difficulty in finalizing the inter se seniority of officers allocated from the said examination. In that background, several successful candidates of CSE-2003 approached this Tribunal seeking appropriate directions. One such candidate, namely Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma (supra), who had been declared successful in the second tranche/result published on 13.01.2005 at Serial No.13, having secured 1195 aggregate marks and allotted to the Indian Civil Accounts Service, instituted OA No.465/2013 titled Neeraj Kumar Sharma vs. Secretary, UPSC & Ors. before this Tribunal. In the said OA, the applicant therein principally sought directions for publication of a consolidated merit list of CSE-2003 on the basis of marks obtained by all successful candidates and for consequential fixation of his inter se seniority in accordance with such consolidated merit position.
13.21 It has been brought on record that when the said OA No.465/2013 came up for consideration before this Tribunal, the 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 61 DoP&T informed that the Cadre Controlling Authority of the applicant therein had already been instructed to determine seniority in accordance with the marks secured by the candidates in the Civil Services Examination. It was further stated that, acting on the advice of the UPSC, necessary directions had been issued to all Cadre Controlling Authorities vide communication dated 08.08.2013 for fixation of seniority on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates. In view thereof, the said Original Application came to be disposed of by order/judgment dated 06.09.2013 with a direction to accord the applicant therein seniority in accordance with the marks secured by him in the examination, i.e., above those candidates who had secured marks lower than 1195. 13.22 It has further been noticed that another successful candidate of Civil Services Examination, 2003, namely Shri Kartikaye Mathur, who had been declared successful in the second tranche/result published on 13.01.2005 at Serial No.5 with 1197 marks and allotted to the Indian Audit & Accounts Service, also approached this Tribunal by filing OA No.466/2013 titled Kartikaye Mathur vs. Secretary, UPSC & Ors. In the said OA, relief was also sought for publication of a consolidated merit list of CSE-2003 and consequential fixation of inter se seniority on the basis of marks obtained in the examination. Record indicates that in the said matter also, a similar stand was taken by the respondents that directions had already been issued to the concerned Cadre Controlling Authorities for fixation of seniority on merit basis. Consequently, the said Original Application was also 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 62 disposed of by order/judgment dated 06.09.2013. 13.23 It is further borne out from the pleadings that both Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma and Shri Kartikaye Mathur were candidates declared successful in the second tranche of CSE-2003, akin to respondent nos.3 and 4 herein. Their respective Cadre Controlling Authorities, in compliance with the aforesaid orders, thereafter issued seniority lists placing officers strictly in accordance with marks secured in SCE - 2003, irrespective of whether their names had appeared in the first tranche or the second tranche of the result.
13.24 It has also been pointed out that during the pendency of the aforesaid OAs, the DoP&T issued Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2013 directing all Cadre Controlling Authorities to determine the inter se seniority of candidates recommended through a particular Civil Services Examination and allocated to a service on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by such candidates. Subsequently, another OM dated 09.01.2014 was issued clarifying that the instructions had already been conveyed to all Cadre Controlling Authorities that seniority was to be fixed according to marks obtained in the Civil Services Examination. The effect of the said instructions was that a candidate securing higher marks would rank senior to a candidate securing lower marks, irrespective of date of joining or category status. 13.25 As noted above the aforesaid principle was not introduced for the first time in 2013, but had been consistently recognized in earlier instructions as well. The DoP&T's O.M. dated 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 63 03.07.1986 provided that relative seniority of direct recruits shall be determined by the order of merit in which they are selected on the recommendation of the UPSC or other selecting authority. The O.M. dated 04.11.1992 reiterated that seniority of a person regularly appointed according to rules shall be governed by the merit position indicated at the time of initial appointment and not by the date of confirmation. The subsequent O.M. dated 11.11.2010 again affirmed that seniority of direct recruits is to follow the order of merit in which they are selected for appointment on the recommendation of the recruiting authority.
13.26 It has been asserted by the private respondents that, in compliance with the orders dated 06.09.2013 passed by this Tribunal and the DoP&T Office Memoranda dated 08.08.2013 and 09.01.2014, the Cadre Controlling Authorities of several Civil Services, other than IDES, revised and finalized the inter se seniority of officers inducted through Civil Services Examination, 2003 onwards strictly on the basis of aggregate merit/marks obtained in the examination, without distinction as to whether the candidates had been declared successful in Tranche-I or Tranche- II. Illustrative examples from the Indian Audit & Accounts Service, Indian Civil Accounts Service and Indian Postal Service have been placed on record showing that candidates from the second tranche, having secured higher marks, were assigned seniority above lower- scoring candidates of the first tranche. The same principle was consistently followed even in subsequent Civil Services Examination batches. Examples drawn from Indian Defence 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 64 Accounts Service, Indian Railway Personnel Service and Indian Audit & Accounts Service indicate that officers declared in Tranche- II were accorded higher seniority whenever they had secured superior marks in comparison to candidates of Tranche-I. The material placed on record, including civil lists for later years, prima facie demonstrates a uniform administrative practice of fixing seniority on merit basis rather than on the sequence of tranche- wise declaration of results.
13.27 It is the further case of the private respondents that, after the decisions rendered in Neeraj Kumar Sharma and Kartikaye Mathur, and pursuant to DoP&T O.M. dated 08.08.2013, the aggregate marks of all successful candidates of CSE-2003 were made available sometime in the year 2016. Upon learning that respondent nos.3 and 4 had secured higher marks than the applicant, representations were submitted by them and by similarly situated officers seeking correction of seniority in IDES on merit basis. Since the earlier civil list had not reflected such principle, reminders were also submitted. Thereafter, the Cadre Controlling Authority reconsidered the matter and circulated a fresh draft Civil List dated 11.09.2018 revising seniority of officers recruited through CSE-2003 onwards according to aggregate marks obtained in the examination. The record further indicates that the applicant objected to the said draft Civil List by submitting representation dated 25.09.2018. The same was considered and rejected by a reasoned order dated 04.01.2019. It is not disputed that the said order was not challenged by the applicant at the relevant time. 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 65 Thereafter, a final seniority list dated 07.01.2019 was issued wherein respondent nos.3 and 4 were placed above the applicant. The plea of the private respondents is that, the said order having remained unassailed, the seniority position attained finality and any challenge raised subsequently is ex facie delayed. 13.28 It has further been contended by the respondents that, upon issuance of the Civil List dated 07.01.2019, the seniority position of IDES officers pertaining to CSE - 2003 and subsequent batches stood revised, regularized and settled on the same principle as had already been adopted in several other Civil Services, namely fixation of inter se seniority on the basis of aggregate marks secured in the UPSC Civil Services Examination. The material placed on record further indicates that the seniority of subsequent batches of IDES officers was also determined on the basis of total aggregate marks obtained by the officers in their respective Civil Services Examinations. From the Civil Lists produced before the Tribunal, respondent nos.3 and 4 were consistently shown senior to the applicant. It is also borne out from the record that a Civil List reflecting the settled seniority position of Group 'A' IDES officers was published on 20.01.2020, wherein respondent nos.3 and 4 were placed above the applicant. Thereafter, a draft Civil List was issued inviting objections and, upon consideration of representations received, a final Civil List as on 01.03.2020 came to be published on 05.03.2020 maintaining the same seniority position. Likewise, a further draft Civil List dated 19.02.2021 reflecting the seniority as on 01.01.2021 again placed respondent 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 66 nos.3 and 4 above the applicant. After disposal of objections, the final Civil List as on 30.12.2021 was issued on 31.12.2021 continuing the same arrangement. Similarly, another draft Civil List dated 04.01.2022 showing the seniority position as on 01.01.2022 also reflected respondent nos.3 and 4 as senior to the applicant. After considering the objections received, the final Civil List as on 01.12.2022 was issued on 08.12.2022 reaffirming the said position. It has also been pointed out that the said final Civil List dated 08.12.2022 was issued under the signature of the applicant himself while holding the relevant administrative office. 13.29 The respondents have further placed on record that yet another draft Civil List dated 07.03.2023 showing the seniority as on 01.01.2023 again maintained respondent nos.3 and 4 above the applicant, which position was continued in the final Civil List dated 20.06.2023 as on 01.06.2023.Likewise, the draft Civil List dated 26.04.2024 showing seniority as on 01.01.2024 and the final Civil List dated 25.10.2024 as on 01.10.2024 also continued to reflect respondent nos.3 and 4 as senior to the applicant. The consistent publication of successive civil lists from the year 2019 onwards, all maintaining the same placement, prima facie indicates that the seniority position had attained continuity and administrative finality.
13.30 It has also been brought on record that, on the basis of the aforesaid settled seniority, the Competent Authority vide order dated 02.08.2023 granted NFU to the SAG in favour of respondent 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 67 nos.3 and 4 as well as the applicant. In the said order also, respondent nos.3 and 4 were shown senior to the applicant. It is the stand of the respondents that NFU is granted only upon satisfaction of prescribed eligibility conditions, service norms and benchmark requirements in terms of DoP&T's O.M. dated 24.04.2009. The issuance of the NFU order, therefore, is relied upon as another instance reflecting recognition of the prevailing seniority position. 13.31 The respondents have also referred to a communication issued by UPSC dated 07.01.2021 wherein it was clarified that the reserve list is not a waiting list, but forms part of the mechanism adopted in a multi-service examination. Reliance has been placed on the clarification that the reserve list is prepared for facilitating allocation of candidates under the prescribed scheme. 13.32 It has further been pointed out that the Government of India, by notification dated 18.02.2014, revised the seniority of officers of the Indian Civil Accounts Service after following the DoP&T O.M. dated 08.08.2013 and the order passed by this Tribunal in Neeraj Kumar Sharma (supra). Reference has also been made to the revised seniority list of DANIPS Cadre issued on 21.07.2021 on the basis of the same Office Memorandum. These instances have been cited to contend that the principle of merit- based fixation of seniority was not confined to one cadre alone, but had been followed across services. Accordingly, correction of seniority to align with marks obtained in the common examination cannot be termed illegal.
2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 68
14. Since the respondents have also pleaded that the claim of the applicant is barred by Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, we refer to Section 21 of the AT Act, which mandates that an application shall not be admitted unless filed within one year from the date of the final order or from the date on which the cause of action first arose, subject to condonation on sufficient cause being shown. The material facts are largely undisputed, as noted above. A Draft Civil List revising the inter se seniority position was circulated on 11.09.2018. The applicant submitted objections thereto on 25.09.2018. The said objections were considered and rejected by a reasoned order dated 04.01.2019. Thereafter, a final Civil List dated 07.01.2019 came to be issued placing private respondent nos. 3 and 4 above the applicant.
14.1 Thus, if the applicant was aggrieved by the refixation of seniority or by rejection of his objections, the cause of action crystallized, at the latest, on 04.01.2019/07.01.2019. However, the present OA has been instituted only on 18.10.2024, i.e., after nearly five years.
14.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. M.K. Sarkar, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59, emphasized that the issue of limitation should be considered by the Tribunal with reference to the original cause of action. In D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2018) 16 SCC 721, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 69 Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation and if it is beyond the period of limitation, it can be admitted only if sufficient cause is shown for not filing the same within the prescribed period. Further in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining, reported in 2008 (10) SCC 115, it has been held that a belated representation, or decision thereon, does not revive a dead or stale cause of action. The relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: -
"7. Every representation to the government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the department or to inform the appropriate department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim."
14.3 Applying the aforesaid settled principles, we are of the considered view that the challenge to the seniority position finalized in January, 2019 is ex facie barred by limitation. No legally sustainable explanation for the prolonged inaction of nearly five years has been shown.
14.4 The next contention of the applicant appears to be that subsequent draft/final Civil Lists issued in later years furnished fresh causes of action. We are unable to agree. Once the seniority position stood finalized in the Civil List dated 07.01.2019, the subsequent Civil Lists of the years 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 merely reflected the already existing and operative position. 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 70 They did not independently re-determine the inter se seniority afresh every year. The distinction between a continuing wrong and continuing consequences of a completed action is too well settled to require elaborate discussion. A seniority order once made may continue to operate, but its repeated reflection in later lists does not generate a recurring cause of action.
14.5 The principle that repeated representations or repeated reiteration of an earlier decision do not create fresh limitation has also been recognized in State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray, reported inAIR 1976 SC 2617. Hence, reliance on later Civil Lists is misconceived.
15. We now turn to the issue of delay, laches and acquiescence. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that seniority disputes must be raised with promptitude, for disturbing settled positions after long lapse of time causes administrative uncertainty and prejudice to others.
15.1 In K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh, reported in 1986 (4) SCC 531, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that stale challenges to seniority should not ordinarily be entertained. Similar principles were reiterated in B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab, reported in 1998 (2) SCC 523 and Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Odisha, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471.
15.2 In the present case, from 2019 onwards the applicant continued in service with full knowledge that private respondent 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 71 nos. 3 and 4 were shown senior to him. Annual Civil Lists repeatedly reflected the same position. Yet no legal proceedings were initiated for years together. It has further come on record that consequential service benefits, including NFU were granted on the basis of the said seniority arrangement. Rights and expectations of other officers have thus intervened.
15.3 The doctrine of acquiescence squarely applies where a party, with full knowledge of facts, stands by and permits a state of affairs to continue, and thereafter seeks to challenge it after lapse of considerable time. Equity does not aid the indolent. We are, therefore, satisfied that apart from limitation, the applicant is also disentitled to discretionary relief on account of delay, laches and acquiescence.
16. So far as the reliance placed by the applicants upon the judgments referred to hereinabove is concerned, the same does not advance their case. The said decisions are clearly distinguishable on facts as well as on the legal matrix obtaining in the present matter. Each precedent is an authority for what it actually decides in the backdrop of its own factual context, and cannot be applied mechanically divorced from the circumstances in which it was rendered. In the instant case, the factual foundation, nature of relief claimed, and governing service conditions materially differ from those considered in the cited decisions. Consequently, the judgments relied upon by the applicants are of no assistance and do not support the claim set up in the present Original Application. 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 72
17. The consistent rule flowing from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is when appointments arise from the same examination/ recruitment year, inter se seniority must be based on merit position in that examination and not on date of appointment or date of joining. This principle has been reaffirmed in a catena of judgments. If the result is declared in two tranches e.g., main list + delayed list due to administrative reasons. Then, both sets of candidates are to be treated as part of the same examination batch. The second tranche is not a separate recruitment result. Therefore, their seniority must be slotted according to their original merit rank in that exam. In such a case, a candidate in the second tranche can rank above earlier appointed candidates if his merit position is higher. Seniority may differ only if the second list is treated as a fresh recruitment cycle or it is a reserve/waiting list operated in a different recruitment year, or Rules explicitly provide otherwise. In such cases, Courts have sometimes treated them as junior to the first batch, especially where vacancies are carried forward. Admittedly, CSE 2003 result declared in two phases, applicant whose name figured in first tranche and the respondent nos.3 and 4 whose names figured in second tranche pertaining to the same CSE-2003. Thus, even if respondent nos.3 and 4 joins later and that too of about two months than the applicant, they will be seniors to applicant, reason is obvious that both belong to the same CSE 2003 merit list. The above conclusion is to ensure fairness and equality under Articles 14 & 16 and to prevent arbitrary disadvantage due to administrative delay as well to uphold integrity of competitive examination merit. On the basis of analysis of above, we hold that if the two tranches are integral 2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 73 parts of the same Civil Services Examination, then seniority must be strictly aligned with merit ranking of that examination irrespective of when the result was declared or appointment was made. 17.1 We also observe that when the Civil List dated 07.01.2019 was published; the seniority of the IDES cadre officers was finally fixed for CSE - 2003 and subsequent batches. The Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA) settled the seniority for CSE - 2003 and subsequent batches on the basis of total aggregate marks obtained in the UPSC Civil Services Examination, as instructed vide DoP&T OM dated 08.08.2013. Having regard to the above instructions on Seniority fixation as the guiding observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above, we hold that once Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 admittedly secured higher aggregate marks than the applicant in the said CSE - 2003, fixation of their seniority above the applicant cannot be faulted. 17.2 As has been stated in the pleadings that on 22.11.2024, a proposal has been moved for convening a meeting of DPC for regular promotion to SAG for vacancy year 2023 onwards, it revealed that some officers other than the officers of batches 2004 and 2005 (who are not involved in this litigation) are under consideration and they are not involved in any litigation regarding fixation of their inter-se seniority and, therefore are entitled for consideration to the promotion to the level of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG). It would be appropriate if the respondents take further action to process the matter of promotion of such officers and the same shall not be impacted by this stalemate.
2026.05.08 RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30' 74
18. For all the reasons recorded hereinabove, we also hold that both the OAs are hopelessly barred by limitation; subsequent Civil Lists do not furnish a fresh cause of action; the OAs are also hit by delay, laches and acquiescence; and no case on merits as well, is made out warranting our interference.
19. Resultantly, for the reasons given above, both the OAs are dismissed.
20. We direct the respondent authorities to take the process of promotion of the officers (who are not involved in the litigation of fixing inter se seniority) to the level of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) to its logical conclusion, as they shall not be allowed to suffer due to impending litigation.
21. Pending MA(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
22. No order as to costs.
23. Registry is directed to place a copy of this Order in another connected OA No.436/2026 as well.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice Ranjit More)
Member (A) Chairman
/ravi/
2026.05.08
RAVI KANOJIA16:05:19+05'30'