• Relative seniority among promotees and DR

Name of post: Assistant Director, Group-B, Gezetted.
Total Cadre strength: 12 posts (During 1997-98).
Method of Recruitment as per RR: i) 50% by promotion, failing which by Deputation and failing both by Direct Recruitment and ii) 50% by Direct Recruitment.
As on 6.10.1997, 3 posts fallen vacant.
Out of 12, 6 posts occupied by Direct Recruitment Candidates and only 3 posts occupied by Promotees after 3 vacancies as on 6.10.1997 
15-12-98 – As per recruitment Register all 3 vacancies identified for promotion, because 6 posts already filled with DR candidates and only 3 posts by promotees to maintain equal ratio of 50%. 
31-12-98- proposal for filling of all 3 vacancies by promotion approved by competent authority.
23-2-99- DPC Chairman not agreed for all 3 by promotion, The proposal changed for first 2 posts for by promotion and remaining one the 3rd vacancy by DR.
DPC held on 18-3-1999, 2 candidates selected, One candidate ‘X’ joined on 30.6.1999 and  2nd candidate ‘Y’ joined on 13.4.2000
Proposal of 3rd vacancy sent to UPSC on 9.9.1999 for Direct Recruitment
11.12.99 – UPSC Advertised the post
4.12.2000 – Interview held and one candidate was selected. 
Offer of appointment was issued to the selected candidate on 13.9.2001 to join on or before 8th  October 2001, but the candidate claimed extension time to time and upto 31st Dec. 2001. Department given extension 3 times i. e. on 15.11.2001, 29-11-2001 and till 14.12.2001. 
Department cancelled the offer of appointment on 31-12-2001 and a Requisition sent to UPSC for recommendation of another candidate from reserve panel
UPSC recommended another candidate ‘Z’ from Reserve Panel and he joined on 7.2.2002
Department fixed the Seniority in the following manner 
During 2001
13-7-2001 – Draft Seniority list issued for asking any discrepancy among candidates 
27.7.2001 – No discrepancy received, seniority list finalized as on 1-7-2001 as 
1. Shri ‘X’ – 30.6.1999 (Promotee)
2. Shri ‘Y’ - 13.4.2000 (Promotee)

During 2004
18.3.2004 – Draft Seniority list issued for asking any discrepancy among candidates 
8.4.2004 – No discrepancy received, seniority list finalized as 

1. Shri ‘X’ – 30.6.1999 (Promotee)
2. Shri ‘Y’ - 13.4.2000 (Promotee)
3. Shri ‘Z’ – 7.2.2002 (Direct Recruitment)

Subsequently Seniority lists same as above, dated 5.1.2009, 25.2.2011, 8.4.2013 & 22.7.2013

Department reviewing the seniority referring with the DOPT OM dated 4.3.2014  to give seniority to ‘Z’ candidate above the ‘Y’ candidate, is it so correct.

As per DOPT OM. No. 20011/1/2012-Estt.(D), dated 4-3-2012 the principles given in the O.M.  Para from 5.a) to 5.g) and Para 5. h), the principles for determination of inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees would be effective from 27.11.2012, the date of Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No.7514-7515/2005 in the case of N.R. Parmar Vs. UOI & Ors. In the O.M. Para 5. i) The cases of seniority already settled with reference to the applicable interpretation of the term availability, as contained in DOPT O.M. dated 7.2.86/3.7.86 may not be reopened. 

In view of date of vacancy, quota reserved for promotion & DR, Recruitment years and date of appointments, whether the above given seniority in the year 2004 and in subsequent years till 2013 are in order. Kindly give answer.
Asked 11 months ago in Civil Law from New Delhi, Delhi
1) the decision of department to give  seniority to Z candidate is unsustainable 

2) as per RR 50 per cent of vacancies had to be filled in by promotion and 40 per cent by direct recruitment 

3) the competent authority had clearly directed that all 3 vacancies be filled in by promotion . 

4) chairman in contravention of RR had directed one vacancy to be filled in by direct recruitment

5) as per DPC held in 1999 X and Y were appointed . Z joined in 2002 

6) the seniority list maintained by DPC for years 2001-2013 is in order 

7) the decision of department to review seniority list and give Z seniority over Y is incorrect  

8) the reason being SC has clearly held that cases of seniority already settled should not be reopened 
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
21680 Answers
1129 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
Ask a Lawyer

Civil Lawyers

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
21680 Answers
1129 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
12609 Answers
120 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
17421 Answers
425 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
11292 Answers
206 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3336 Answers
122 Consultations
4.8 on 5.0
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2635 Answers
38 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
814 Answers
36 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
1847 Answers
18 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
S J Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1933 Answers
61 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Thresiamma G. Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1275 Answers
82 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0