Summary
The Court approved initial appointment or continuous officiation as the basis for combined all-India seniority of MES employees selected independently by different Commands where no contrary rule governed. Merit placement could govern candidates from one selection, but the cited memorandum did not resolve consolidation of separate selections. Although the contrary Punjab and Haryana judgment was set aside, two employees’ revised status was exceptionally protected under Article 142 because of intervening promotions and retirement circumstances.
Issues
- How combined all-India seniority should be determined where different MES Commands conducted separate selections and the rules did not prescribe consolidation.
- Whether two employees’ status under the contrary judgment should be disturbed after intervening promotions and retirement developments.
Provisions considered
- Paragraph 2.1, DoPT Office Memorandum dated 3 July 1986Merit-based relative seniority of direct recruits from a common selection did not supply a rule for the combined ranking of these independently conducted Command selections. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 17, 18)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe Court exceptionally preserved the revised status of two employees despite rejecting the underlying seniority principle. (¶¶ 23, 24)
Held
- The Commands had independently prepared their select panels, and the governing rules or guidelines did not prescribe combined all-India seniority. The common-selection merit principle did not answer that distinct problem. (¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18)
- For the consolidated list, initial appointment or continuous officiation was an appropriate basis absent a contrary governing rule. Persons appointed years later from an old Command panel could not claim an earlier position against employees from other Commands merely by reference to that panel. (¶¶ 14, 18, 19, 20, 22)
- The Court disapproved the operation of the old panel after four to five years but declined to reopen the long-settled appointments in these circumstances. An individual aggrieved by placement in the recast list could independently challenge that placement according to law. (¶¶ 15, 21, 22)
- The Punjab and Haryana judgment’s principle was rejected. Nevertheless, Jatinder Pal and Satish Kumar Sharma retained their revised status through an exceptional Article 142 direction, considering promotions already made and retirement or imminent retirement. That protection did not approve the rejected principle. (¶¶ 16, 23, 24)
Result
Atrey’s appeal arising from SLP(C) 6572/2014 dismissed. Appeal arising from SLP(C) 5275/2021 allowed and Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment set aside, without disturbing Jatinder Pal’s and Satish Kumar Sharma’s status. Pending applications disposed of.