Uttarakhand High Court
Dr. Major Arun Kumar Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 14 November, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 UTR 565
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, Alok Kumar Verma
RESERVED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Restoration Application No. 716 of 2019
in
Writ Petition No.508 of 2016 (S/B)
Dr. Major Arun Kumar Singh ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........Respondents
Present :
Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Brief Holder for the respondents.
with
Writ Petition No.518 of 2016 (S/B)
Dr. Naveen Chandra Tewari ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........Respondents
Present :
Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Brief Holder for the respondents.
Coram : Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Reserved on:30.07.2019 Delivered on:14.11.2019 Per : Alok Kumar Verma, J.
The Restoration Application No. 716 of 2019, duly supported by an affidavit, has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, is allowed. Order dated 01.07.2019 is recalled. The Writ Petition No.508 of 2016 (S/B) is restored to its original number.
2. These writ petitions are filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to re-fix the seniority of the petitioners taking into account the previous 2 service as a Medical Officer in the Unit of Short Service Commission; a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to decide the representations of the petitioners.
3. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the petitioner [Writ Petition No.508 of 2016 (S/B)] was appointed in the Thal Sena on 21.08.1999 by Short Service Commission on the post of Captain in the Wing of Medical. On 21.08.2003, he was promoted on the post of Major and thereafter, he was released from service on 19.03.2005, after completion of five years and six months service. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 06.02.2014 of the Public Service Commission for the post of Medical Officer, after taking 'No Objection Certificate' dated 14.07.2004, the petitioner applied for the said post. The petitioner was selected under 2% Military Quota. The appointment letter was issued on 27.11.2004. There was some problem before the petitioner as a result, he sought time for extension of joining. The Government granted time for joining till 31.03.2005. The petitioner joined on 19.03.2005 in the office of the respondent No.4 and he was given a charge of Medical Health Officer. His previous service as a Captain and after promotion as a Major should be added for the benefit of seniority, but, he has not been given seniority of the previous service. Therefore, petitioner moved a representation on 31.07.2016 before the respondent No.2, but till date his seniority of the previous year has not been counted in the present department.
4. The case of the petitioner [Writ Petition No.518 of 2016 (S/B)] is that the petitioner was appointed in the Indian Army on 03.11.1997 as Medical Officer through Short Service Commission. He worked there about five years i.e. from 03.11.1997 to 25.12.2002 and thereafter, he was released from the service. The Public Service Commission issued an 3 advertisement. The petitioner applied for the post of Medical Officer, after taking 'No Objection Certificate' from the Indian Army. He was selected under 2% Military Quota. He joined as a Medical Officer on 04.03.2003. The petitioner moved representations from time to time, but, he was not given the benefit of seniority of Medical Officer worked in the Unit of Short Service Commission of Indian Army.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the services of the petitioners should have been counted for the purpose of seniority in the light of "The Uttar Pradesh Non-Technical (Class II) Services (Reservation of Vacancies for Demobilised Officers) Rules, 1973" {hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1973"} and "The Uttar Pradesh Non-Technical (Class II/Group B) Services (Appointment Of Demobilized Officers) Rules, 1980 {hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1980"}. In the support of their submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.50 of 2005 (S/B), Thaneshwar Prasad Kundalia Vs. State of Uttaranchal, dated 04.07.2005 and a judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.56915 of 2010, Dr. Major Bipul Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, dated 21.07.2011.
6. The learned Brief Holder, appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, relied strongly upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajendra Pratap Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2011)7 SCC 743.
7. According to the respondents, the petitioners were selected in the Government Services under the 2% Military Quota. Due to their past services as a Medical Officer under Short Service Commission, the petitioners' past services had already been permitted to be adjusted for the retiral benefits.
4The benefits of Government Order dated 28.09.1987 has already been given to the petitioners. This Government Order pertains to the payment of salary and is related to the pay fixation. There is no provision in the Government Order to give seniority by adding the period of Military Service. In this Government Order, it is clearly mentioned that this Order is being used as Rules, 1973 had become ineffective. The petitioners had given their representations regarding re-fixing their pay and seniority while final seniority list Part 2nd was issued in the year, 2010 in which the name of the petitioner [Writ Petition No.508 of 2016 (S/B)] was included on the seniority number 906 and the name of the petitioner [Writ Petition No.518 of 2016 (S/B)] was included on the seniority number 663. On the basis of this seniority list, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Senior Medical Officer vide Government Order dated 04.07.2013 and they accepted their promotions, which were based on the same seniority. The petitioners had joined Military Service during normal times. The preferential treatment i.e. benefit of seniority for rendering Military Service could be granted only to those who joined Forces during emergency due to foreign aggression. The Rules, 1973 ceased to exist after five years i.e. on 05.08.1978. Therefore, both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length, and also perused the material available on record.
9. Initially, "The Uttar Pradesh Non-Technical (Class II) Services (Reservation of Vacancies for Demobilized Officers) Rules, 1968 was introduced on 29.03.1968, which remained in force for a period of five years from the date of its commencement. On the expiry of the five years, the Governor of the State of Uttar Pradesh, in exercise of his powers 5 conferred by Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, made the Rules, 1973. The Rules, 1973 was introduced on 06.08.1973, which remained in force for a period of five years from the date of its commencement and expired on 05.08.1978. The Rules, 1973 provided reservation of 10% vacancies to be filled by a competitive examination for Disabled Defence Service Officers. The benefit of the Rules, 1973 was extended only to those officers who were Commissioned between 01.11.1962 to 10.01.1968 and up to those who joined on or after 03.12.1971 and released at any time thereafter. The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued Government Order No.2003 dated 20.08.1977 providing for reservation to the extent of 8% only which eventually reduced to 2% in Class II and Class III services of the State Government.
10. The relevant part of the Rules, 1973 and Rules, 1980 reads as follows:-
"In exercise of the powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, and in suppression of the Uttar Pradesh Non-Technical (Class II) services (Reservation of vacancies for Demobilised Officers) Rules, 1968, published with Government notification 8/2/66-Apptt. (B), dated March 19, 1968, the Governor is pleased to make the following rules:
THE UTTAR PRADESH NON-TECHNICAL (CLASS II) SERVICES (RESERVATION OF VACANCIES FOR DEMOBILISED OFFICERS) RULES, 1973
1. Short title and commencement :-
(1) These rules may be called the Uttar Pradesh Non-
Technical (Class II) services (Reservation of Vacancies for Demobilised Officers) Rules, 1973.
(2) They shall came into force at once.
(3) They shall remain in force (for a period of five years) from the date of their commencement.
62. Definition:- In these rules unless the context otherwise requires :-
(1) "Armed Forces of the Union" means the, Naval, Military or Air Forces of the Union and includes the Armed Forces of the former Indian states, (2) "Disabled Defence Service Officer" means a commissioned officer who while serving in the Armed Forces of the Union was disabled in the course of operations against the enemy or in disturbed areas:
(3) "Non Technical (Class II) Services" means all class II services (except engineering services) recruitment to which is made upon the result of competitive examination.
3. Reservation of Vacancies :- (1) Ten percent of the permanent Vacancies in all non-technical (Class II) services to be filled substantively by direct recruitment through competitive examination in any year, shall be reserved for being filled in by the Disabled Defence Service Officers, emergency Commissioned officers and the short service Commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces of the Union who were commissioned on or after November 1, 1962, but before January 10, 1968, and again on or after December 3, 1971 and released at any time thereafter.
Provided that the reservation so made shall be utilized first for the appointment of Disabled Defence Service Officer and if any vacancy remain unfilled, the same shall be then be made available to other emergency commissioned officers and short service commissioned officers.
4. Method of recruitment: - (1) for the purpose recruitment to the vacancies reserved under sub- rule(1) or sub-rule (3) of rule 3, a competitive examination shall be held by the Lok Sewa Ayog in only the compulsory subjects prescribed for the competitive examination under the rules applicable to the service concerned.
(2) After the marks obtained by candidates in the written test have been received the Ayog shall summon for viva voce test as any candidates as have in its opinion, shown their suitability for appointment in the written test and shall award marks up to the maximum prescribed in the relevant service rules.
7Army service also be taken into account while awarding marks in the viva voce test. The marks so allotted will be added to be marks obtained in the written test.
6. Seniority and pay :-(1) Seniority and pay of candidates appointed against the vacancies (reserved under sub-rule (1) of rule 3), shall be determined on the assumption that they entered the service concerned at their second opportunity, of competing for recruitment, and they shall be assigned the same year of allotment as successful candidates of the relevant competitive examination;
Provided that any such candidate who had two opportunities before the date of his joining the training prior to his commission, whether he actually availed any such opportunity or not, shall be assigned the same year of allotment as successful candidate of the first competitive examination held after the said date.
Explanation :-The year of a candidate's second opportunity will be determined by the date of his birth in relation to the prescribed minimum age for competing for recruitment to the service.
(2) Seniority inter se of candidates who are appointed against vacancies reserved under sub-rule (1) of rule 3 and allotted to a particular year, shall be determined according to the merit list prepared by the Ayog on the basis of the results of their performance at the examination.
(3) All candidates appointed against vacancies reserved under sub-rule (1) of rule 3 and allotted to any particular year shall rank below the candidates who were successful at the competitive examination held for recruitment to the service in that year.
(4) The pay of candidates appointed against vacancies referred to in sub-rule (3) of rule 3 shall so be determined in the same manner as indicated in sub- rule (1) of this rule but their seniority shall be determined in accordance with the foregoing sub- rules only if and at the point of time when they are appointed substantively against permanent vacancies.
In cases where the process of recruitment either has not been concluded or commenced prior to 6th 8 August, 1978, to regularise the appointment of such Demobilised Short Service Commissioned officers, Uttar Pradesh Non-Technical (Class-II/Group-B) Services (Appointment of Demobilised Officers) Rules, 1980 (In short '1980 Rules') has been introduced. 1980 Rules read as follows:
Published in the P Gazette, Part-I-A, dated December 20, 1980 KARMIK VIBHAG August 19, 1980 No. 6-1- 72 Karmik-2-In exercise of the power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Governor is pleased to make the following rules :-
1. Short title and commencement:- (1) These may be called the Uttar Pradesh Non-Technical [Class II/ Group B] Services [Appointment of Demobilised Officers] Rules, 1980.
[2] They shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from August, 1978.
2. Overriding Effect- These rules shall have notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in any rules or orders.
3. Definitions - In these rules unless the context otherwise requires.
[a] "Armed Forces of the Union" mean the Nava, Military or Air Forces of the Union and include the Armed Forces of the Armed forces of the former Indian States;
[b] "Disabled Officer" means Disabled Defence Service Officer, Emergency Commissioned Officer and the Short Service Commissioned Officer of the Armed Forces of the Union who was commissioned on or after November 1, 1962, but before January 10, 1968 or on or after December 3, 1971 and released at any time thereafter.
[c] "Disabled Defence Service Officer" means a Commissioned Officer who while service in the Armed Forces of the Union was disabled in the course of operation against the enemy or in disturbed areas.
4. Appointment :- A person, selected for appointment to a non-technical Class II/Group B service or post, against the vacancies reserved for Demobilised Officers, as a result of recruitment, the process of which was concluded or commenced prior to August 9 6, 1978. In accordance with the Provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Non-Technical [Class II] Service [Reservation of Vacancies for Demobilised Officer] Rules, 1973 [hereinafter to be referred to as the said rules] shall be eligible and be considered for appointment against the vacancies reserved for Demobilised Officers under the said rules :
Provided that the reserved vacancies shall be utilized first for the appointment of Disabled Defence Service Officers, and, if any such Vacancies still remain unfilled the same shall then be made available to other Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Services Commissioned Officers :
Explanation :- the notification of vacancies or the advertisement there of by the Commission shall, among other, be a process of recruitment within the meaning of this rule.
5. Seniority and pay :- [1] Seniority and pay of persons appointed against the vacancies referred to in the said rules shall be determined on the assumption that they entered the service concerned at the second opportunity of competing for recruitment, and they shall be assigned the same year of allotment as successful candidates of the relevant competitive examination.
Provided that any such candidate who had two opportunities before the date of his joining the training prior to his commission, whether he actually availed any such opportunity or not, shall be assigned the same year of allotment as successful candidates of the first competitive examination held after the said date.
Explanation [1] The year of candidate's second opportunity will be determined by the date of his birth in relation to the prescribed minimum age for competing for recruitment to the service.
[2] Seniority inter se of candidates, referred to in sub- rule [1] and allotted to a particular year shall be determined according to the merit list prepared by the Public Service Commission on the basis of their performance at the examination.
[3] All candidates appointed against vacancies, referred to in sub-rule [1] and allotted to any particular year, shall rank below the candidate who 10 were successful at the competitive examination held for recruitment to the service in that year. [4] The day of candidate's appointed against permanent vacancies, initially to be filled on temporary basis, or against temporary vacancies which are likely to be made permanent or to continue on a long term basis, shall also be determined in the same manner as indicated in sub-rule [1] of this rule but their seniority shall be determined in accordance with the foregoing sub rules only if and at the point of time they are substantively appointed against permanent."
11. This fact is not disputed in these two writ petitions that the appointments of the petitioners on the civil posts were not against the vacancies reserved under the Rules, 1973. In State of U.P. and another Vs. Dinkar Sinha, (2007)10 SCC 548, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a person whose appointment in the civil/police service is not against the vacancies reserved under the Rules, 1973 cannot claim seniority under the Rules, 1980.
12. In Thaneshwar Prasad Kundalia (Supra), the petitioner was recruited to the Short Service (Non-Technical) Vth Course of the Indian Army and he joined the Indian Army on 21.08.1967. After training he was commissioned as an officer of the Indian Army on 23.06.1968. The petitioner was discharged from the Indian Army on 09.04.1976. Thereafter, he was appointed as Secretary of the District Soldier Board on 17.11.1976 and he worked in that capacity till 10.01.1988. In the meanwhile, the petitioner passed the Provincial Civil Services (PCS) Examination and he was appointed as Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement) as per order dated 30.11.1987. He joined service of the Government of Uttar Pradesh as Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement) 11 on 11.01.1988. On formation of the State of Uttaranchal, the petitioner had been allotted to the State of Uttaranchal and he was working as Regional Transport Officer, Kumaon Region. This High Court observed that one Jitendra Nath filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court contending that those who had joined the Army and were undergoing training prior to 10th January, 1968, but were commissioned only after 10th January, 1968, also should be given the benefit of the Army service for the purpose of counting seniority in the Government service. The Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and held that Shri Jitendra Nath who joined the Army for training on 17.08.1967 and was commissioned only on 23.06.1968 was entitled to the benefit under the Rules as he was undergoing training w.e.f. 17.08.1967. After discussing the matter, the writ petition was allowed by this Court and the first respondent was directed to take into account the Army service rendered by the petitioner in fixing his seniority in the Transport Department of the first respondent.
13. In Thaneshwar Prasad Kundalia (Supra), the petitioner of that petition joined the Indian Army on 21.08.1967 and after training he was commissioned as an officer of the Indian Army on 23.06.1968 and he was discharged from the Indian Army on 09.04.1976, whereas in the case at hand, the petitioner [Writ Petition No.508 of 2016 (S/B)] was appointed in the Thal Sena on 21.08.1999 by Short Service Commission and he was released from service on 19.03.2005 and petitioner [Writ Petition No.518 of 2016 (S/B)] was appointed in the Indian Army on 03.11.1997 through Short Service Commission and he worked there from 03.11.1997 to 25.12.2002. The facts of the case of 12 Thaneshwar Prasad Kundalia (Supra) was completely different. Therefore, we find that this judgment has no application to the facts of the case in hand.
14. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.56915 of 2010, Dr. Major Bipul Kumar (Supra), the petitioner of that writ petition worked as Medical Officer Short Service Commission in the Indian Army from 29.04.1987 to 01.06.1992 and discharged his duties on the rank of Major in Military service. Against an advertisement for filling up the vacancies of Medical Officer, advertised by U.P. Public Service Commission, the petitioner applied for appointment and was duly selected and appointed on 30.04.1994 as an ex-service man. The petitioner claimed that in terms of the Government Order dated 02.05.1973, he would be entitled to the benefit of fixation of his seniority in service as well as salary as a Short Service Commission Officer. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, after noticing its earlier judgment in Writ Petition No.22511 of 2000, Dr. Om Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, dated 26.02.2004, allowed the writ petition on 21.07.2011 in terms of the said judgment and order dated 26.02.2004 and directed the respondent No.2 to re-fix the seniority as well as salary of the petitioner after giving him benefit of the Government Order dated 02.05.1973. Against the judgment and order dated 21.07.2011, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed the petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28965 of 2011, State of U.P. and others Vs. Bipul Kumar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition with the following Order passed on 30.10.2012, "No ground is made out for our interference with the impugned judgment. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly."
15. In the matter of Rajendra Pratap Singh Yadav (Supra), respondent No.4 joined the Indian Army in 1981 and 13 was discharged from the Army in 1986. He was a Short Service Commissioned Officer. The appellants and respondent No.4 were direct recruits to the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Police Service. It was stated that the appellants were 4 to 10 years senior to respondent No.4, who was selected and appointed in the year 1994 as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Uttar Pradesh Provincial Police Service. Respondent No.4 was given benefit of his past service in the Indian Army as a Short Service Commissioned Officer of eight years. One Shri Rajendra Singh and Sudhir Kumar were also given the benefit of the Rules, 1973. Since respondent No.4, though junior was placed above the appellants, therefore, the appellants filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition.
16. In Rajendra Pratap Singh Yadav (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Rules, 1973 ceased to exist after five years i.e. on 05.08.1978. The life of the Rules, according to the judgment delivered in Dilbag Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, (1995)4 SCC 495, was extended up to 1980. In any event, no one could be given benefit of the Rules, 1973 after 1980. Admittedly, respondent No.4 was appointed in 1994 and the benefit could not have been extended to respondent No.4. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that persons who joined the Army after the emergency was over cannot also be given the benefit which was extended to those persons who joined the Army during emergency. Those who joined the Army during the period of emergency virtually joined the war which was being fought by the nation. The benefit extended to such persons cannot be extended to the members of the Armed Forces who had joined the Army during normal periods. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that persons who have joined the Army during the foreign aggression could have opted for other career or softer career or 14 service but the nation itself being under peril, impelled by the spirit to serve the nation, they opted for joining the Army where the risk was much more. Such persons formed a class by themselves and the benefit extended to them cannot be extended to the persons who joined the Army during the normal times. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the appointment of respondent No.4 was not against the vacancies reserved under the Rules, 1973, therefore, he cannot get benefit of the Rules, 1973. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that the respondent No.4 did not join the Armed Forces during emergency and thus stealing a march over 181 officers was not only contrary to the Rules but was discretionary and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the respondent No.4 and similarly placed employees could not have been given the benefit of the Rules, 1973. These Rules were not in existence when they were appointed. Therefore, they could not have derived any benefit from the Rules, 1973. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the respondent No.4, Rajendra Singh and Sudhir Kumar were wrongly given the benefit of the Rules, 1973.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28965 of 2011, State of U.P. and others Vs. Bipul Kumar (Supra) with the following Order passed on 30.10.2012, "No ground is made out for our interference with the impugned judgment. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly."
18. In Kunhayammed and others Vs. State of Kerala and another, (2000)6 SCC 359, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court may be dismissed by a non-speaking order or by a speaking order. Whatever be the phraseology employed in the 15 order of dismissal, if it is a non-speaking order, i.e. it does not assign reasons for dismissing the special leave petition, it would neither attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand substituted in place of the order put in issue before it nor would it be a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution for there is no law which has been declared. Therefore, dismissal at the stage of special leave petition without reasons, there is no res judicata or no merger.
19. In Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (Now Known As Khoday India Limited) and others Vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. Kollegal (Under Liquidation) represented by the Liquidator, (2019)4 SCC 376, a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the view in the detailed judgment in Kunhayammed lays down the correct law.
20. In Rajendra Pratap Singh Yadav (Supra), after noticing several of its earlier judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the judgment on 05.07.2011. We are, hence bound by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this judgment. In our view, the case at hand is also covered by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case.
21. The final seniority list was issued in the year, 2010, in which the name of the petitioner [Writ Petition No.508 of 2016 (S/B)] was included on Serial No.906 and the name of the petitioner [Writ Petition No.518 of 2016 (S/B)] was included on Serial No.663. On the basis of this seniority list, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Senior Medical Officer vide Government Order dated 04.07.2013. The petitioners accepted their promotions, which were issued on 16 the basis of the same seniority. Therefore, the petitioners, now, cannot raise the issue of re-fixing their seniority once they accepted the promotion on the same seniority.
22. It is well settled law that the settled seniority should not be unsettled after a lapse of time. In Rabindra Nath Bose and others Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1970 SC 470, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it will be neither just or equitable to deprive person who have been promoted many years ago, of the rights that have accrued to them regarding their rank and seniority by purporting to conduct a review of promotion after the lapse of many years. In Maloon Lawrence Cecil D' Souza Vs. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 1269, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the settled seniority cannot be unsettled after a long period. In Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and others Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 2010 SC 706, the question whether a belated challenge against the seniority list can be entertained was considered. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed, "The question of entertaining the petition disputing the long standing seniority filed at a belated stage is no more res-integra. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Ram Chandra Shanker Deodhar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1974 SC 259, considered the effect of delay in challenging the promotions and seniority list and held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as it seeks to disturb the vested rights of other persons regarding seniority, rank and promotions which have accrued to them during the intervening period." In Union of India and another Vs. S.K. Goel and others, (2007)14 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed, "..Since the matter of seniority has been well settled and this Court in a plethora of cases has held that the seniority/promotions granted on the strength of D.P.C. selection should not be unsettled after a lapse of time."
17In Rajendra Pratap Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held, "We deem it appropriate to reiterate that in service jurisprudence there is immense sanctity of a final seniority list. The seniority list once published cannot be disturbed at the behest of person who choose not to challenge it for four years. The sanctity of the seniority list must be maintained unless there are very compelling reasons to do so in order to do substantial justice. This is imperative to avoid avoidable litigation and unrest and chaos in the services."
23. The learned Brief Holder, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the claim of the petitioners are highly belated and stale. Therefore, the writ petitions ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners moved the several representations before the concerned authorities and only when they realized that the relief would not be forthcoming, they approached this Court.
24. Mere repeated filing representations could not be sufficient explanation for delay in approaching the Court for grant of relief. In Union of India Vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010)2 SCC 59, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that a Court or Tribunal, before directing "consideration" of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a "live" issue or whether it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue. If it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue or dispute, the Court/Tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration.
1825. In view of the above detailed discussions, we are of the considered view that the claim of the petitioners are highly belated and stale and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Pratap Singh Yadav (Supra), the claims of the petitioners cannot be accepted. Therefore, both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
26. In the result, Writ Petition No.508 of 2016 (S/B) and Writ Petition No.518 of 2016 (S/B) are dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their respective costs, as incurred.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ.) 14.11.2019 Sanjay