Summary
In a Delhi High Court recruitment of private secretaries, thirteen candidates obtained re-evaluation of their answer sheets under court orders and all gained marks; a Special Committee later accorded them notional seniority as per the revised marks, but the High Court set that aside and placed them below the last originally appointed candidate. The Supreme Court restored the Special Committee's decision, holding that once the limited re-evaluation had attained finality, candidates whose marks rose had to be placed at their correct position in the merit list, and that originally selected candidates who neither sought re-evaluation nor challenged its limited scope could not complain.
Issues
- Whether candidates whose marks were increased on re-evaluation are entitled to be ranked in the merit list according to the revised marks, with notional seniority from the date of the original select list, for the purpose of future promotions.
- Whether candidates appointed under the original merit list, who did not seek re-evaluation or challenge the decision to confine re-evaluation to thirteen candidates, can later object that the revised merit list operates to their disadvantage.
- Whether the rule that seniority runs only from the date of entry into the cadre, as applied in K. Meghachandra Singh, governs a case where the revision is a correction of the original select list.
Provisions considered
- Rules governing selection to the post of private secretary, Delhi High Court (Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1972The Selection Committee had initially refused rechecking because the Rules contain no provision for re-evaluation; re-evaluation was nonetheless carried out under the High Court's orders and the Special Committee's decision, which attained finality. (¶¶ 2.1, 6.2)
Held
- Once the decision to re-evaluate the answer sheets of thirteen candidates attained finality and their marks increased, the Special Committee was justified in according notional seniority according to the revised marks; denying seniority on the revised marks would render the re-evaluation exercise redundant. (¶¶ 6.3, 7)
- Originally selected candidates who did not apply for re-evaluation at the relevant time and did not challenge the decision to limit re-evaluation to thirteen candidates cannot later contend that the re-evaluation should not operate to their disadvantage. (¶ 7)
- Candidates who, through no fault of their own, were kept out of the select list by wrong marking are entitled on correction of the error to inter se seniority on the basis of merit; it was those whose rank fell, not the re-evaluated candidates, who were to be adjusted against the additional vacancies. (¶¶ 6.3, 7)
- The decision in K. Meghachandra Singh, concerning seniority of direct recruits vis-a-vis promotees from the date the vacancy arose, does not apply: the appellants' appointment from 30.01.2017 stands unchallenged, and their seniority from that date follows because the re-evaluation was in substance a correction of the select list of that date. (¶ 8)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court's common judgment set aside; the Special Committee's decision dated 01.10.2018 restored; the appellants held entitled to notional seniority from 30.01.2017 in accordance with their revised marks on re-evaluation. No costs.