The Bombay High Court has upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision directing a fresh determination of inter se seniority between direct recruit and promotee Inspectors (Examiner), holding that the seniority list issued on December 7, 2021, must align with the Supreme Court’s ruling in K. Meghachandra Singh and Others v. Ningam Siro and Ors, (2020) 5 SCC 689. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad dismissed two writ petitions, one filed by direct recruits and the other by the Union of India, challenging the Tribunal’s order.
The case stemmed from a dispute between direct recruits of the 2016-2017 SSC batch and promotee Inspectors who had entered the cadre in December 2016. The promotees filed an application before the CAT, challenging the final seniority list dated December 7, 2021, on the ground that it wrongly granted seniority to direct recruits from a back date, contrary to the Supreme Court’s declaration in K. Meghachandra Singh that seniority cannot be assigned from the date of vacancy or from initiation of recruitment but only from actual appointment. The Tribunal accepted this plea, set aside the seniority list, and directed preparation of a fresh list based strictly on the law laid down in Meghachandra.
In the High Court, the direct recruits argued that the Tribunal ignored their core contention that their seniority had already crystallised by January 2019, when they were nearly two years into service, and therefore they were entitled to the benefit of Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012), 13 SCC 340, which was still the governing law at that time. They contended that Meghachandra should apply only prospectively and not disturb settled positions. They also stressed that the promotees had failed to object to the draft seniority list within time, and thus could not reopen it a year later.
Rejecting these arguments, the Court held that the determining factor was not whether the direct recruits were in service, but whether the seniority list was finalised before November 19, 2019, the date Meghachandra was delivered. Since the seniority list for the relevant years (2015- 2016) was not finalised before this date, the governing instructions were those in the Official Memorandums (OM) of February 7, 1986 and July 3, 1986, which require seniority to be assigned on the basis of actual appointment in the cadre, not the date of vacancy or initiation of recruitment. The Court reiterated the settled principle that no one can claim seniority from a date when they were not yet borne in the cadre.
The Bench also clarified that the mere pendency of a reference concerning Meghachandra before a larger Bench (as noted in Hariharan & Others v. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao & Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1717) does not dilute its binding nature. Until the larger Bench decides otherwise, Meghachandra remains the law of the land and must be followed for continuity, certainty, and orderly administration. The Court emphasised that speculation about a future ruling cannot halt the present application of a binding precedent.
Concluding that the Tribunal’s direction was consistent with binding precedent and the applicable OMs, the High Court dismissed both writ petitions and refused to interfere with the order requiring issuance of a fresh seniority list. The pending interim applications challenging the reversion orders were also disposed of accordingly.
Appearances
Petitioners- Mr. Anil Singh, Additional Solicitor General i/by Mr. Aniruddha A. Garge, Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy with Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy, Ms. Seema Sorte and Mr. Aalim Pinjari, Advocates
Respondents- Mr. Ramchandra Apte, Senior Advocate, i/by Mr. Sagar Ambedkar, Ms. Jacinta Lobo Kadam, Advocates, Mr. Rahul Walia i/by Mr. Puneet Pathak, Advocates, Mr. Vishwajeet V. Mohite, Advocate.
