Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by promotees (appellants) against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court which had quashed the seniority list dated 13.02.2018 and restored the list dated 07.09.2016. The dispute concerned inter-se seniority between promotees and direct recruits for the post of Income Tax Inspector in Gujarat. The promotees were promoted on 26.06.2009, while direct recruits were selected through CGLE-2010 against vacancies of 2009-10. The High Court had held that direct recruits should be interspaced with promotees of 2009-10 based on the decision in Union of India v. N.R. Parmar (2012) 13 SCC 340. However, the Supreme Court noted that N.R. Parmar was overruled by a larger bench in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro (2020) 5 SCC 689, which held that seniority of direct recruits is reckoned from the date of appointment, not from the vacancy year, when the recruitment process is not initiated in that year. The Court found that in this case, the advertisement for CGLE-2010 was issued in January 2010, and the examination was conducted in 2010, not in 2009. Therefore, the direct recruits could not claim seniority from 2009-10. The Court also held that the prospective application of K. Meghachandra Singh did not protect the direct recruits because the seniority list in their favor had been quashed by the High Court and the matter was pending. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the seniority list dated 13.02.2018, which placed direct recruits with promotees of 2010-11.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Inter-se seniority between promotees and direct recruits - Rotation of quota - Direct recruits recruited through CGLE-2010 against vacancies of 2009-10 cannot be interspaced with promotees of 2009-10 when recruitment process was not initiated in 2009 - Held that seniority of direct recruits is reckoned from date of appointment, not from vacancy year, following K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, (2020) 5 SCC 689, which overruled N.R. Parmar prospectively (Paras 8-12). B) Service Law - Seniority - Prospective overruling - Decision in K. Meghachandra Singh applies prospectively and does not affect seniority fixed on basis of N.R. Parmar prior to 19.11.2019 - Held that in this case, seniority list of 13.02.2018 was quashed by High Court, and the matter was pending, so the prospective application does not protect the direct recruits (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether direct recruits recruited through CGLE-2010 against vacancies of 2009-10 are entitled to be interspaced with promotees of 2009-10 for seniority, given that the recruitment process was not initiated in 2009.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of Gujarat High Court set aside. Seniority list dated 13.02.2018 restored.
Law Points
- Seniority of direct recruits is reckoned from date of appointment
- not from vacancy year
- when recruitment process is not initiated in that year
- Rotation of quota principle
- Prospective overruling of N.R. Parmar by K. Meghachandra Singh
