Sunil Verma V. Union of India Through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, New Delhi and Chief Commissioner of Income-tax(C.C.A.), Jaipur, Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur and Pradeep Sharma and Jagdish Prasad Saini and Yogesh Sharma and Pramod Goyal and Bhagirath Lal Gupta and Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur Through Its Chairman

CW/15446/2010

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the seniority of certain employees (respondents) who were appointed as Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) under the sports quota in 1983. The petitioner, Sunil Verma, challenged the seniority list that favored the respondents, arguing that the seniority should be counted from the date of their recruitment, which was later than the petitioner's. The Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the respondents, leading to this writ petition. The High Court's decision emphasized the importance of not reopening settled seniority disputes after a long duration, citing various precedents from the Supreme Court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 701906 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India (UOI) and Ors. etc. etc. vs. N.R. Parmar and Ors. etc. etc., Regional Manager, A. P. SRTC vs. N. Satyanarayana And Others, B.S. Bajwa & Another vs. State of Punjab & Others, State of Orissa vs. Chandra Shekhar Mishra, Bimlesh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana & Others
• Laws Referred To: Union of India (UOI) and Ors. etc. etc. vs. N.R. Parmar and Ors. etc. etc. (2012) 13 SCC 340, Regional Manager, A. P. SRTC vs. N. Satyanarayana And Others (2008) 1 SCC 210, B.S. Bajwa & Another vs. State of Punjab & Others 1998 SCC (L&S) 611, State of Orissa vs. Chandra Shekhar Mishra, 2003 SCC (L&S) 878, Bimlesh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana & Others SLJ 2003 (2) 220
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AMIT MATHUR; GAURAV JAIN; HIMANSHU JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: CHIRANJI LAL SAINI
• Keywords: Direct Recruits; Promotees; Sports Quota; Staff Selection Commission; Seniority dispute; Meritorious sportsmen; Service selection committee
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15446 / 2010 Sunil Verma S/o Shri Dula Ram Kumawat, Aged About 50 Years, Quarter No.42, Income-tax Colony, Jyoti Nagar,jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India Through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, New Delhi 2. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax(C.C.A.), Jaipur,central Revenue Building,bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 3. Pradeep Sharma S/o Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, IV/22, Income-tax Colony, Jyoti Nagar,jaipur 4. Jagdish Prasad Saini S/o Shri Gangal Ram Saini, Aged About 50 Years, 100-B,panchawati Scheme No. 1,alwar 5. Yogesh Sharma S/o Late Shri Brij Lal Sharma, Aged About 54 Years, Brivilla,raghu Marg,bhagat Singh Circle,alwar 6. Pramod Goyal S/o Srichand Goyal, Aged About 50 Years, 434,adarsh Block,mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road,jaipur 7. Bhagirath Lal Gupta,,inspector Income-tax,income-tax Office, Jhalawar,rajasthan 8. Central Administrative Tribunal,jaipur Bench,jaipur Through Its Chairman ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Mathur Mr. Gaurav Jain Mr. Himanshu Jain _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Judgment 03/10/2017 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the (2 of 18) [CW-15446/2010] judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the applicants/respondents herein. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicants before the Tribunal were initially appointed as UDCs against Sports quota in 1983. It may be stated that during the pendency of this OA, the respondents had conducted a review DPC thereby promoting certain candidates on the post of Income Tax Inspector based on the revised seniority. The said action of the respondents was challenged by respondent No.5 by filing MA NO. 112/2002 and the Tribunal vide order dated 28.03.2002 directed the respondents not to give effect to their order dated 20.03.2002 (Annexure A/13). Accordingly, all the applicants were working as Inspector. Now few facts may be noticed. As already stated above, that the applicants were recruited as UDC against the Sports quota in 1983. They were appointed in response to the advertisement published at National Level, for recruitment of UDCs who have brilliant/meritorious sports record against the substantive permanent vacant posts. Consequently they joined the post of UDC on 18.05.1983 so far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, on 20.05.1983 so far respondent No. 4 is concerned and on 02.09.1983 so far as respondent No.5 is concerned. The petitioner and private respondent No. 7 and petitioner joined the post of UDC in the year 1986 and respondent No. 6 in the year 1988 respectively as per details given in Para No. 4.1 of the OA. Their names were sponsored by the Service Selection Committee vide letter dated 26.09.1984 in response to requisition sent by the respondents to the SSC vide letter dated 18.04.1984. This fact is (3 of 18) [CW-15446/2010] borne out from the letter dated 26.09.1984 which is placed on record as Annexure A/10 It is further stated that the private respondents have not born in service when the applicants had already joined the service. In service when the applicants had already joined the service. The private respondent No. 7 and petitioner had joined the department almost three and a half years later to the applicants and respondent No.6 had joined five years after the applicants joined the department. The seniority list was published in the year 1986 wherein the names of the private respondents No.3, 4 and 5 were shown at Sl. Nos. 196, 198 and 207 respectively. The names of the private respondents do not find mention in the said seniority list. Thereafter another seniority list was published in the year 1989 vide order dated 27.03.1989 wherein the names of the respondent Nos. 3 4 and 5 were shown at sl. No. 156, 158 and 164 respectively while the name of the private respondents and petitioner were shown at sl. NO. 222,246, and 218. The respondents published another seniority list in the year 1991 vide order dated 26.09.1991. In the said seniority list, the private respondents were shown junior to the applicants. Yet another seniority list was published in the year 1993 vide order dated 16.04.1993 followed by another seniority list issued in the year 1994 vide letter dated 01.09.1994 and the seniority list issued in the year 1999 vide letter dated 14.03.1999 whereby private respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 were shown senior to the private respondent and petitioner. 3. Challenging the order of the department whereby the department opened up the issue of seniority after more than 16 (4 of 18) [CW-15446/2010] years by order dated 22.01.2002, counsel for the appellant has taken us to order dated 22.01.2002 and contended that Tribunal has committed serious error in overlooking the judgment in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Ors. etc. etc. vs. N.R. Parmar and Ors. etc. etc. (2012)13SCC340 wherein it has been observed as under:- 20. Since it is the case of the rival parties before us, that the OM dated 7.2.1986 is the principal instruction, on the basis whereof the present controversy is to be settled, the same is being extracted hereunder in its entirety. The 7 February, 1986. Office Memorandum Subject: General Principles for determining the seniority of various categories of persons employed in Central Services. As the Ministry of Finance etc. are aware, the General Principles for determination of seniority in the Central Services are contained in the Annexure to Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No. 9/11/55-RPS dated 22nd December 1959. According to Paragraph-6 of the said Annexure, the relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees shall be determined according to rotation of vacancies between the direct recruits and the promotees, which will be based on the quota of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion respectively in the Recruitment Rules. In the Explanatory Memorandum to these Principles, it has been stated that a roster is required to be maintained based on the reservation of vacancies for direct recruitment and promotion in the Recruitment Rules. Thus where appointment to a grade is to be made 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from a lower grade, the inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees is determined on 1:1 basis. 2. While the above mentioned principle was working satisfactorily in cases where direct recruitment and promotion kept pace with each other and recruitment could also be made to the full extent of the quotas as prescribed, in cases where there was delay in direct recruitment or promotion, or where enough number of direct recruits or promotees did not become available, there was difficulty in determining seniority. In such cases, the practice followed at present is that the slots meant for direct recruits or promotees, which could not be filled up, were left vacant, and when direct recruits or promotees became available through later examinations or selections, such persons occupied the vacant slots, thereby became senior to persons (5 of 18) [CW-15446/2010] who were already working in the grade on regular basis. In some cases, where there was short-fall in direct recruitment in two or more consecutive years, this resulted in direct recruits of later years taking seniority over some of the promotees with fairly long years of regular service already to their credit. This matter had also come up for consideration in various Court Cases both before the High Courts and the Supreme Court and in several cases the relevant judgment had brought out the inappropriateness of direct recruits of later years becoming senior to promotees with long years of service. 3. This matter, which was also discussed in the National Council has been engaging the attention of the Government for quite some time and it has been decided that in future, while the principle of rotation of quotas will still be followed for determining the inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, the present practice of keeping vacant slots for being filled up by direct recruits of later years, thereby giving them unitended seniority over promotees who are already in position, would be dispensed with. Thus, if adequate number of direct recruits do not become available in any particular year, rotation of quotas for purpose of determining seniority would take place only to the extent of the available direct recruits and the promotees. In other words, to the extent direct recruits are not available, the promotees will be bunched together at the bottom of the seniority list, below the last position upto which it is possible to determine seniority on the basis of rotation of quotas with reference to the actual number of direct recruits who become available. The unfilled direct recruitment quota vacancies would, however, be carried forward and added to the corresponding direct recruitment vacancies of the next year (and to subsequent years where necessary) for taking action for direct recruitment for the total number according to the usual practice. Thereafter, in that year while seniority will be determined between direct recruits and promotees, to the extent of the number of vacancies for direct recruits and promotees as determined according to the quota for that year, the additional direct recruits selected against the carried forward vacancies of the previous year would be placed en-bloc below the last promotee (or direct recruit as the case may be) in the seniority list based on the rotation of vacancies for that year. The same principle holds good in determining seniority in the event of carry forward, if any, of direct recruitment or promotion quota vacancies (as the case may be) in the subsequent years. Illustration: Where the Recruitment Rules provide 50% of the vacancies in a grade to be filled by promotion and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment, and assuming there are 10 vacancies in the grade arising in each of the years 1986 and 1987 and that 2 vacancies intended for direct recruitment remained unfilled during 1986 and they could be filled during 1987, the seniority position of the (6 of 18) [CW-15446/2010] promotees and direct recruits of these two years will be as under: 1986 1987 1.P1 9.P1 2.D1 10.D1 3.P2 11.P2 4.D2 12.D2 5.P3 13.P3 6.D3 14.D3 7.P4 15.P4 8.P5 16.D4 17.P5 18.D5 19.D6 20.D7 4. In order to help the appointing authorities in determining the number of vacancies to be filled during a year under each of the methods of recruitment prescribed, a Vacancy Register giving a running account of the vacancies arising and being filled from year to year may be maintained in the proforma enclosed. 5. With a view to curbing any tendency of underreporting/suppressing the vacancies to be notified to the concerned authorities for direct recruitment, it is clarified that promotees will be treated as regular only to the extent to which direct recruitment vacancies are reported to the recruiting authorities on the basis of the quotas prescribed in the relevant recruitment rules. Excess promotees, if any, exceeding the share falling to the promotion quota based on the corresponding figure, notified for direct recruitment would be treated only as ad-hoc promotees. 6. The General Principles of seniority issued on 22nd December, 1959 referred to above, may be deemed to have been modified to that extent. 7. These orders shall take effect from 1st March 1986. Seniority already determined in accordance with the existing principles on the date of issue of these orders will not be reopened. In respect of vacancies for which recruitment action has already been taken, on the date of issue of these orders either by way of direct recruitment or promotion, seniority will continue to be determined in accordance with the principle in force prior to the issue of this O.M. 8. Ministry of Finance etc. are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all the Attached/Subordinate Offices (7 of 18) [CW-15446/2010] under them to whom the General Principles of Seniority contained in O.M. dated 22.12.1959 are applicable within 2 week as these orders will be effective from the next month. Sd/- Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India (Emphasis is ours) Since the OM dated 7.2.1986 would primarily constitute the determination of the present controversy, it is considered just and appropriate to render an analysis thereof. The following conclusions are apparent to us, from a close examination of the OM dated 7.2.1986: (a) Paragraph 2 of the OM dated 7.2.1986 first records the existing manner of determining inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees (i.e., as contemplated by the OM dated 22.11.1959), namely, \"...the slots meant for direct recruits or promotees, which could not be filled up, were left vacant, and when direct recruits or promotees become available through later examinations or selections, such persons occupied the vacant slots, (and) thereby became senior to persons who were already working in the grade on regular basis. In some cases, where there was shortfall in direct recruitment in two or more consecutive years, this resulted in direct recruits of later years taking seniority over some of the promotees with fairly long years of regular service to their credit....\". The words, \"when direct recruits or promotees become available through later examination or selections\", clearly connotes, that the situation contemplated is one where, there has been an earlier examination or selection, and is then followed by a \"later\" examination or selection. It is implicit, that in the earlier examination or selection there was a shortfall, in as much as, the available vacancies for the concerned recruitment year could not all be filled up, whereupon, further examination(s) or selection(s) had to be conducted to make up for the shortfall. In the instant situation, the earlier OM dated 22.11.1959 contemplated/provided, that slots allotted to a prescribed source of recruitment which remained vacant, would be filled up only from the source for which the vacancy was reserved, irrespective of the fact that a candidate from the source in question became available in the next process of examination or selection, or even thereafter. In other words the \"rotation of quotas\" principle was given effect to in letter and spirit under the OM dated 22.11.1959, without any scope of relaxation. (b) The position expressed in the sub-paragraph (a) above, was sought to be modified by the OM dated 7.2.1986, by providing in paragraph 3 thereof, that the earlier \"...principle of rotation of quotas would still be followed for determining the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees....\" except when the direct recruit vacancies were being \"... filled up by direct recruits of later years....\". Read in conjunction with paragraph 2 of the OM dated 7.2.1986, the words \"...direct recruits of later (8 of 18) [CW-15446/2010] years....\" must be understood to mean, direct recruits who became available through \"later\" examination(s) or selection(s). Essentially the \"later\" examination(s) or selection(s) should be perceived as those conducted to fill up the carried forward vacancies, i.e., vacancies which could not be filled up, when the examination or selection for the concerned recruitment year was originally/first conducted. This change it was clarified, was made to stop direct recruits of \"later\" years, from gaining \"... unintended seniority over promotees who are already in position....\", as High Courts and the Supreme Court had \"...brought out the inappropriateness....\" thereof. It is therefore apparent, that the OM dated 7.2.1986 partially modified the \"rotation of quotas\" principle in the determination of inter se seniority originally expressed in the OM dated 22.11.1959. The OM dated 7.2.1986, provided that the \"rota\" (rotation of quotas) would be adhered to \"...only to the extent of available direct recruits and promotees....\", i.e., for promotee and direct recruit vacancies which could be filled up through the original/first process of examination or selection conducted for the recruitment year in which the vacancies had arisen. (c) For the vacancies remaining unfilled when the same were originally/first sought to be filled up, the slots available under the \"rota\" principle under the OM dated 22.11.1959, would be lost to the extent of the shortfall. In other words, the \"rotation of quotas\" principle would stop operating after, \"...the last position upto which it is (was) possible to determine seniority on the basis of rotation of quotas....\", for the concerned recruitment year. (d) Paragraph 3 of the OM dated 7.2.1986 provided, the manner of assigning seniority to vacancies carried forward on account of their having remained unfilled in the original/first examination or selection process. The change contemplated in the OM dated 7.2.1986, referred to hereinabove, was made absolutely unambiguous by expressing that, \"The unfilled direct quota vacancies would...be carried forwarded and added to the corresponding direct recruitment vacancies of the next year....\". It is therefore apparent, that seniority of carried forward vacancies would be determined with reference to vacancies of the recruitment year wherein their selection was made, i.e., for which the \"later\" examination or selection was conducted. (e) The OM dated 7.2.1986 formulated the stratagem to be followed, where adequate number of vacancies in a recruitment year could not be filled up, through the examination or selection conducted therefor. The OM provided, \"...to the extent direct recruits are not (9 of 18) [CW-15446/2010] available, the promotees will be bunched together at the bottom of the seniority list, below the last position upto which it is (was) possible to determine the seniority on the basis of rotation of quotas with reference to the actual number of direct recruits who become available....\". (f) Paragraph 3 of the OM dated 7.2.1986 further postulated, that the modification contemplated therein would be applied prospectively, and that, \"...the present practice of keeping vacant slots for being filled up by direct recruits of later years,...over promotees who are (were) already in position, would be dispensed with....\". It is therefore apparent, that the slots assigned to a particular source of recruitment, would be relevant for determining inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits, to the extent the vacancies could successfully be filled up (and the unfilled slots would be lost) only for vacancies which arose after the OM dated 7.2.1986, came to be issued. (g) The illustration provided in paragraph 3 of the OM dated 7.2.1986 fully substantiates the analysis of the OM dated 7.2.1986 recorded in the foregoing sub- paragraphs. In fact, the conclusions drawn in the foregoing sub-paragraphs have been drawn, keeping in mind the explanatory illustration narrated in paragraph 3 of the OM dated 7.2.1986. (h) In paragraph 6 of the OM dated 7.2.1986 it was asserted, that the general principles for determining seniority in the OM dated 22.11.1959 were being \"modified\" to the extent expressed (in the OM dated 7.2.1986). The extent of modification contemplated by the OM dated 7.2.1986 has already been delineated in the foregoing sub-paragraphs. Para 6 therefore leaves no room for any doubt, that the OM dated 22.11.1959 stood \"amended\" by the OM dated 7.2.1986 on the issue of determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees, to the extent mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraphs. The said amendment was consciously carried out by the Department of Personnel and Training, with the object of remedying the inappropriateness of direct recruits of \"later\" examination(s) or selection(s) becoming senior to promotees with long years of service, in terms of the OM dated 22.11.1959. 21. The O.M. dated 7.2.1986, was followed by another Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, dated 3.7.1986 (hereinafter referred to as, \"the O.M. dated 3.7.1986\"). The purpose of the instant O.M., as the subject thereof suggests, was to \"consolidate\" existing governmental (10 of 18) [CW-15446/2010] orders on the subject of seniority. Paragraphs 2.4.1 to 2.4.4 of the O.M. dated 3.7.1986 dealt with the issue of inter se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees. The same are accordingly being reproduced hereunder: 2.4.1 The relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees which shall be based on the quota of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion respectively in the Recruitment Rules. 2.4.2 If adequate number of direct recruits do not become available in any particular year, rotation of quotas for the purpose of determining seniority would take place only to the extent of the available direct recruits and the promotees. In other words, to the extent direct recruits are not available the promotees will be bunched together at the bottom of the seniority list below the last position upto which it is possible to determine seniority, on the basis of rotation of quotas with reference to the actual number of direct recruits who become available. The unfilled direct recruitment quota vacancies would, however, be carried forward and added to the corresponding direct recruitment vacancies of the next year (and to subsequent years where necessary) for taking action for direct recruitment for the total number according to the usual practice. Thereafter in that year while seniority will be determined between direct recruits and promotees, to the extent of the number of vacancies for direct recruits and promotees as determined according to the quota for that year, the additional, direct recruits selected against the carried forward vacancies of the previous year would be placed en-bloc below the last promotee (or direct recruit as the case may be), in the seniority list based on the rotation of vacancies for that year. The same principle holds good for determining seniority in the event of carry forward, if any, of direct recruitment or promotion quota vacancies (as the case may be) in the subsequent year. ILLUSTRATION: Where the Recruitment Rules provide 50% of the vacancies of a grade to be filled by promotion and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment, and a assuming there are ten vacancies in the grade arising in each of the year 1986 and 1987 and that two vacancies intended for direct recruitment remain unfilled during 1986 and they could be filled during 1987, the seniority position of the promotees and direct recruits of these two years will be as under: (11 of 18) [CW-15446/2010] 2.4.3 In order to help the appointing authorities in determining the number of vacancies to be filled during a year under each of the methods of recruitment prescribed, a Vacancy Register giving a running account of the vacancies arising and being filled from year to year may be maintained in the proforma enclosed. 2.4.4 With a view to curbing any tendency of underreporting/suppressing the vacancies to be notified to the concerned authorities for direct recruitment, it is clarified that promotees will be treated as regular only to the extent to which direct recruitment vacancies are reported to the recruiting authorities on the basis of the quotas prescribed in the relevant recruitment rules. Excess promotees, if any, exceeding the share failing to the promotion quota based on the corresponding figure, notified for direct recruitment would be treated only as ad-hoc promotees. (Emphasis is ours) The following conclusions have been drawn by us from the O.M. dated 3.7.1986: (a) If adequate number of direct recruits (or promotees) do not become available in any particular year, \"rotation of quotas\" for the purpose of determining seniority, would stop after the available direct recruits and promotees are assigned their slots for the concerned recruitment year. (b) To the extent direct recruits were not available for the concerned recruitment year, the promotees would be bunched together at the bottom of the seniority list, below the last position upto which it was possible to determine seniority, on the basis of rotation of quotas. and vice versa. (c) The unfilled direct recruitment quota vacancies for a recruitment year, would be carried forward to the corresponding direct recruitment vacancies of the next year (and to subsequent years, where necessary). and vice versa. In this behalf, it is necessary to understand two distinct phrases used in the OM dated 3.7.1986. Firstly, the phrase \"in that year\" which connotes the recruitment year for which specific vacancies are earmarked. and secondly, the phrase \"in the subsequent year\", which connotes carried forward vacancies, filled in addition to, vacancies earmarked for a subsequent recruitment year. (d) The additional direct recruits selected, against the carried forward vacancies of the previous year, would be (12 of 18) [CW-15446/2010] placed en-bloc below the last promotee. and vice versa. It is, therefore, apparent, that the position expressed in the O. Ms. dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986, on the subject of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees, was absolutely identical. This is indeed how it was intended, because the OM dated 3.7.1986 was only meant to \"consolidate\" existing governmental instructions, on the subject of seniority. 4. He contended that the order of the Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside. He has also taken us to Rule 11 which is reproduced as under:- “11.Seniority of meritorious sportsmen appointed in relaxation of Recruitment Rules.- where sportsmen are recruited through the Employment Exchange of by direct advertisement and are considered along with other general category candidates, they may be assigned seniority in the order in which they are placed in the panel for selection. Where recruitment to a post is through a selection made by the Staff Selection Commission, whether by a competitive examination or otherwise, the sportsmen recruited in the departments themselves should be place en bloc Junior to those who have already been recommended by the Service Selection Commission. The inter se seniority of sportsmen will be if the order of selection.” 5. He contended that the respondents are wrongly granted the benefit and the petitioner is entitled to seniority from the date on which the cadre or post was vacant in the original department. The order of 02.01.2002 was justified and they ought to have been given seniority. 6. Counsel for the respondent Mr.Jain has relied upon the decision in Regional Manager, A. P. SRTC V/s N. Satyanarayana And Others (2008) 1 SCC 210, wherein it has been held as under:- (13 of 18) [CW-15446/2010] “9. It is to be noted that the ratio of the decision in the said case was to the following effect: It is difficult to comprehend the ratio of the above decision. While purporting to clarify the order passed in the writ petition by the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench imported a totally alien concept of continuous service within the meaning of Section 25B of the I.D. Act which was for the special purpose of applying the provisions as to lay off and retrenchment contained in Chapter V-A of the Act. Moreover, the order in the writ appeal is as vague as it could be. The expression 'date of continuous appointment' makes no sense. Even if it is taken that the said wording has been inaccurately used for the words 'continuous service', still, the direction is unintelligible. Continuous service within the meaning of Section 25B for how long? Nothing has been specified. In this state of things, in W.P. No. 24263 of 1998, a learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that as per the decision in W.A. No. 705/1995, the employees were entitled to seek regularization with effect from the date of initial appointment, thus, making the clarification given by the Division Bench virtually otiose. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the law laid down or the directions given in various writ petitions/writ appeals are not legally sustainable for more than one reason. Firstly, wrong criterion based on Section 25B of I.D. Act was applied in case after case. Secondly, the respondents and other similarly situated employees approached the Court under Article 226 long after their regularization, thereby unsettling the settled position. Thirdly, on the facts of these cases, it is evident that the services of the employees who were recruited as Conductors were regularized within a reasonable time. The respondent- employees were, therefore, treated fairly. No service rule or regularization or any other principle of law has been pressed into service by the respondents to claim regularization from an anterior date i.e. right from the date of their initial appointment as daily wage employees. 10. Even a bare reading of paragraph-18 of the judgment on which reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, it is clear that the relief was moulded to avoid anomalies and in view of the peculiar situation involved. This Court categorically held that the orders impugned in the appeals were not sustainable because the writ petitions were filed after a long lapse of time. Similar is the position here. The regularization was done w.e.f. 1.8.1987 and the writ petitions were filed in the year 1999. That being so and since in the writ petition without any explanation has been offered for the delayed approach, writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.” (14 of 18) [CW-15446/2010] 7. He contended that the order dated 11.11.2007 was challenged almost after 3 years on 09.11.2010 and office objection and everything was removed only on 22.11.2010 which was hopelessly time barred. In view of the decision of Supreme Court, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Counsel for the performa respondent Mr. Mathur contended that in view of Para 20 and 21 of the Supreme Court judgment referred above, the issue no longer survives and seniority will be counted from the date of requisition and the same will govern the case. 9. Mr. Jain has relied upon the order of the Tribunal wherein it has been observed as under:- 7. We have given due consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. We entirely agree with the contention so raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. From the material placed on record and even from the impugned order (Annexure A/1), it is clear that applicants have never objected to their seniority list. Even respondent No. 1 in Para No. 6 of the impugned order has specifically stated that objections regarding seniority list were invited from the affected persons and one Shri Sunil Verma has objected to the seniority list vide his representation dated 22.12.1989 and no action has been taken on the said representation. No representation whatsoever was filed by the respondents against the seniority lists in the year 1991, 1993, 1994 and 1999. It is further clear from this Para that one Shri Sunil Verma (Respondent No. 2) and Pramod Goyal (Respondent No. 3) had filed OA before this Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.07.2001 thereby directing the respondents to decide the representation of the applicants. According to us, it was not permissible for the respondents to entertain such a belated claim of the private respondents in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court whereby it has been held that seniority dispute raised after more than a decade after joining the service should not be re-opened and the matter has to be dismissed on that ground alone without going into the merit of the case. This is what the (15 of 18) [CW-15446/2010] Apex Court has held in the case of B.s. Bajwa & Another vs. State of Punjab & Others 1998 SCC (L&S) 611. At this stage it will be useful to quote Para No. 7 of the judgment, which thus reads as under:- \"7. Having heard both sides we are satisfied that the writ petition was wrongly entertained and allowed by the Single Judge and, therefore the judgements of the Single Judge and the Division Bench have both to be set aside. The undisputed facts appearing from the record are alone sufficient to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of laches because the grievance was made by B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta only in 1984 which was long after they had entered the department in 1971-72. During this period of more than a decade they were all along treated as junior to the aforesaid persons and the right inter se had crystallized which ought not to have been reopened after the lapse of such a long period. At every stage others were promoted before B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta and this position was known to B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta right from the beginning as found by the Division Bench itself. It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition.\" The law laid down by the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In this case, private respondents entered the Department in the year 1986-1988. The respondents have issued as many as six seniority lists from 1986 onwards and objections were also invited. The private respondents were shown junior to the applicants in all the seniority lists, which was circulated in the years 1989, 1991, 1993, 1994 and 1999. Even for argument sake, it is to be admitted that one shri sunil Verma had objected to the seniority list as early as on 22.12.1989, it was not open for him to file OA in this Tribunal after a lapse of more than 11 years in 2001. In fact, this Tribunal should not have entertained that OA in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of orissa vs. Chandra Shekhar Mishra, 2003 SCC (L&s) 878 whereby it has been stated that even direction to decide the representation where the case is hopelessly time barred should not have been given by the Tribunal. Be that as may be, since the Tribunal had given direction to decide the representation in accordance with law and the private respondents has not racked up the issue of the subsequent seniority lists issued from time to time, we are of the view that the action of the respondents to re-open the entire issue at this belated stage is against the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Bajwa (supra). Further the Apex Court in the case Bimlesh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana & Others SLJ 2003 (2) 220 in para No. 46 has held as under:- \"46. Furthermore, it is now well settled that a settled position should not be unsettled. The respondents had already been posted to the post of Additional District Judge. As would appear from the report of the Sub- Committee that the (16 of 18) [CW-15446/2010] seniority list was published in the year 1992. Representations were, however, made only in the year 1997 which was rejected by the High Court on 22 August, 1997. The Writ petition was filed in March 1998 which was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment dated 18.08.1999. 8. Thus in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, we are of the view that the applicants are entitled to the relief on this score alone namely that it was not proper for respondent No. 1 to reopen the matter again after a lapse of 16 years, which will amount to unsettled the settled position and also that as many as 5 to 6 seniority lists were circulated and objections were invited against these seniority lists but private respondents choose not to object the matter and simply filing of the OA at belated stage after a lapse of 11 years will not entitled the private respondents to reopen the entire issue again, more particularly in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of orissa vs. Chandra Shekhar Mishra, 2003 SCC (L&S) 878, where the Apex Court has deprecated the action of the Tribunal to entertain the belated OA thereby giving direction to decide representation of the applicant, once the representation was rejected by the department thereafter entertaining another OA and granting relief to the applicant, by holding that such course was not permissible and state claim ought not to have been entertained. 9. Even on merit, the applicant has made out a case for our interference. In order to give relief to the private respondents, respondent No. 1 has relied upon the instructions, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 22.12.1959, and has also relied upon certain judgements of the Apex Court, which have been referred to in the earlier part of the judgement. We are of the firm view that respondent No. 1 has not consider the matter in the right perspective and has misread the circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs as well as judgements rendered by the Apex Court, which was in different context. As already stated above, the judgement of the Apex Court was rendered in the context where the dispute of relative seniority between direct recruits and promotees was involved. The seniority has to be determined between direct recruits and promotees based on the quota of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion respectively. The issue involved in this case relates to the direct recruits as the applicant as well as the respondents were recruited to the post through a selection made by SSC or otherwise. Thus the stand taken by the respondents that the question of length of service is irrelevant where quota is involved is wholly without any basis. At this stage, it will be useful to quote Para No. 4 of the instructions of OM dated 22.12.1959, which thus reads as follows \"4. Direct Recruits. Notwithstanding the provisions of para 3 above, the relative seniority of all recruits shall be determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for such appointment on the recommendations of the UPSC or other selecting authority, persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection being senior to those appointed as a result of subsequent action. Provided that where persons recruited initially on a temporary (17 of 18) [CW-15446/2010] basis are confirmed subsequently in an order different from the order of merit indicated at the time of their appointment, seniority shall follow the order of confirmation and not the original order of merit.\" 10. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the relevant seniority of direct recruits shall be determlned by the order of merit in which they are selected for such appointment on the recommendation of the UPsc or other selecting authority. Admittedly, the applicants were selected in the year 1983 as direct recruits and they joined the department in 1983 Further, it is also clear that requisition was sent to the ssc by the Department in the year 1982 for the 33 vacancies and the SSC sponsored the names of 32 candidates on the basis of the result of the competitive examination held in 1982. Against the 32 candidates sponsored by the ssc, only 17 candidates joined the department. Further the stand taken in the reply by the respondents, lt is evident that subsequently another requisition was sent in the year 1984 and the remaining 15 candldates Including the private respondents were sponsored by the ssc on 26.09.1984 Annexure A/10). Thus in view of the stand taken by the respondents in their reply, it is not understood how the private respondents can be treated as appointee of the year 1982? when they have not joined the department: despite the recommendation made by the selection committee, only 17 persons joined the department pursuant to such recommendation. The fact remains that another requlsition was sent in the year 1984 and lt is pursuant to such requlsition, name of the 15 candidates were recommended by the ssc and subsequently the private respondents were appointed and joined the department in the year 1986 and 1988. Thus in view of the provisions contained in Para No. 4 of the instructions dated 22.12.1959, the respondents could not have allotted the seniority from the retrospective date when they were not born in the cadre at the relevant time. As already stated above, it appears that respondent No. 1 has relied on Para 6 of the aforesaid memo, which was not applicable in the instant case, v which relate to the seniority of direct recruits and the promotees, which thus reads as under:- \"6. Relative seniority of Direct Recruits and of Promotees- The relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees which shall be based on the quotas of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion respectively in the Recruitment Rules.\" 11. Thus from perusal of Para 6 of O.M. dated 22.12.1959, it clear that relative seniority between direct recruits and promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between them whereas existence of vacancies is irrelevant where only one source of recruitment is involved as in the instant case. It was the para No. 4, which should have been made applicable in the case of applicants and private respondents being direct recruits read with para 4 of Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training, oM No. 14015/1/76-Estt.(D) dated o4.08.1980, which will clinch the issue of seniority between sportsman (applicants) (18 of 18) [CW-15446/2010] recrulted by way of direct advertisement and the private respondents which were appointed through selection made by the SSC. Para 4 of OM dated 04.08.1980 is in the following terms which thus reads as under:- \"Seniority of meritorious sportsmen appointed in relaxtion of Recruitment Rules - Where sportsmen are recruited through the Employment Exchange or by direct advertisement and are considered along with other general category candidates, they may be assigned a seniority in the order in which they are placed in the panel for selection. Whether recruitment to a post is through a selection made by the Staff Selection Commission, whether by a competitive examination or otherwise, the sportsmen recruited in the departments themselves be placed on block junior to those who have already been recommended by the Service Selection Commission. The inter se seniority of sportsmen will in the order of selection. 10. Taking in to consideration the decision of Supreme Court referred above, the issue is covered. Even otherwise while considering the case the Tribunal has rightly observed that the appellant should be considered from the date of their recruitment even if subsequent law declared by the Supreme Court is considered it will be from the date of sending the requisition in October, 1984 and not 1982. 11. In view of the above, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. Even on preliminary objections we could have dismissed the petition on the ground of delay but on merit, we are not with the petitioner therefore, the petition stands dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS)J. (K.S.JHAVERI)J. B.M.Gandhi/Gourav-55 "