C.S. Geethakumari & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –

The applicants, aggrieved by the rejection of their request to correct the seniority, by Annexures A1 to A5 orders have filed this OA.

All the applicants joined the service under the respondents as Daily Rated Clerks in 1992 and subsequently regularized as Lower Division Clerks with effect from 1994. Subsequently, they were promoted as UDCs in 2006. While so, all of them were granted ad hoc appointments as Assistants in 2014. Their services were regularized with effect from 2015, by Annexure A8 order.

While so, Annexure A9 circular dated 26.12.2014 was issued for conducting LDCE for the post of Assistant. In the above circular the vacancy year was not mentioned. The applicants, then being on ad hoc status, applied for LDCE. However, their applications were not considered by the Ministry on the ground that they have already been promoted to the post of Assistant (now Assistant Superintendent) on 22.5.2015.

Apprehending that on the LDCE candidates being recruited they may lose seniority, applicants represented to the Passport Officer. A clarification was sought from the Trivandrum office and as informed by the Ministry by Annexure A10 communication dated 4.8.2015, it was clarified that seniority of UDCs promoted as per select list dated 15.6.2015 (Annexure A8) would have seniority as reflected in the select list and is the seniority list of Assistants. For officials promoted through LDCE, their seniority will be fixed according to merit/rank obtained by them in the exam. Therefore, according to applicants, by Annexure A10, an assurance was given that the inter se seniority of LDC officials will be reflected below those promoted as per the select list dated 15.6.2015. In the meanwhile, Annexure A11 seniority list of Assistant Superintendents/Hindi Translators and Stenographers as on 1.4.2017 was published by office memorandum dated 9.2.2018. Subsequently, OM dated 7.8.2019 was issued publishing the draft seniority list of Assistant Superintendents/Hindi Translators and Stenographers as on 1.1.2019. Contrary to the assurance given earlier, Annexure A12 showed that the applicants were pushed down to lower ranks presumably based on the principles enunciated on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. N.R. Parmar [(2012) 13 SCC 340]. It was stated that a number of officials who have been appointed to the cadre on 12.10.2015 and some of 2016 even were given seniority above the applicants, who were promoted on ad hoc basis in 2014 and regularized with effect from 22.5.2015. Immediately, after Annexure A12 draft seniority list was published, 1^st applicant submitted Annexure A13 representation. Similar representations were submitted by all other applicants. The representations were rejected by Annexures A1 to A5 orders.

Contending that Annexures A1 to A5 orders are not in accordance with law and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. v. Ningam Siro & Ors. [(2020) 5 SCC 689], the applicants have approached this Tribunal. The reliefs sought in the Original Application are as under:

Respondents filed reply statement contending that the applicants were promoted to the post of UDCs on 5.10.2006 and had completed 8 years of regular service in the feeder grade on 4.10.2014 and thus eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant (now Assistant Superintendents) on 1.4.2015, against the promotion and LDCE quota on completing 8 years of regular service in the grade. The process of conducting LDCE was started in the year 2014, immediately after the revision of RRs notified vide GSR dated 4.3.2014. As far as correction in the seniority list was concerned, following the earlier seniority list as on 1.4.2017 issued by the Ministry by OM dated 9.2.2018, Ministry received several representations from direct recruits Assistant Superintendents promoted in 2015 from the feeder cadre and through limited departmental competitive examination held in August, 2015. The matter was thus referred to the Department of Personnel and Training for their advice. Accordingly, a draft seniority list as on 1.1.2019 was prepared based on DoP&T’s instructions and guidelines on seniority issued vide OM dated 4.3.2014 and following the methodology adopted while fixing the seniority as on 1.1.2019. The vacancy year of DR and LDCE promoted as Assistant Superintendents was 2014 and therefore, the inter se seniority between the Assistant Superintendents recruited through CGL-2014 and LDCE 2015 was drawn according to the rotation of vacancies available between the DR and LDCE based on the quota vacancies reserved for them. Further, the vacancy year of the Assistant Superintendents promoted in May, 2015 from feeder post was 2015-16. Therefore, they were placed enbloc below the Assistant Superintendents recruited through CGL-2014 and LDCE- 2015.

A rejoinder was filed by the applicants contending that the above stand of the respondents is contrary to the decision of the Principal Bench in OA No. 537 of 2021. An additional reply statement was filed by the respondents contending that the reliance placed by the applicants over the Supreme Court judgment in Meghachandra Singh’s case (supra) which overruled N.R. Parmar’s case (supra) was misplaced as the judgment itself declared that the decision was binding prospectively and the seniority already decided on the basis of N.R. Parmar’s case would not be unsettled, hence, stood protected.

Heard both sides and examined the records.

Evidently, Annexure A12 draft seniority list dated 7.8.2019 is prepared based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar’s case. Evidently, the seniority has not been finalized. However, Meghachandra Singh’s case overruled N.R. Parmar’s case. The decision in Meghachandra Singh’s case (supra) was rendered on 19.11.2019. The seniority had not been finalized in accordance with N.R. Parmar’s case, when Meghachandra Singh’s case came into the field. While overruling N.R. Parmar’s case, Meghachandra Singh’s case saved only the inter se seniority already based on N.R. Parmar’s case. It was specifically stated that the decision will apply prospectively except where the seniority was to be fixed under the relevant Rules on the date of vacancy/date of advertisement.

Evidently, the seniority had not been finalized based on N.R. Parmar’s case, when the decision in Meghachandra Singh’s case was rendered. Consequently, Annexure A12 is not sustainable.

Some of the Assistants who were junior to the applicants herein had approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 893 of 2019 challenging the draft seniority list dated 7.8.2019. In OA No. 893 of 2019 Annexure A12 herein was produced as Annexure A9. Annexure A11 herein was produced as Annexure A9 in OA No. 893 of 2019. The draft seniority list produced as Annexure A12 herein was produced as Annexure A10 in OA No. 893 of 2019. This Tribunal by order dated 22.10.2025 allowed the OA and directed the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to pass appropriate orders refixing the seniority of promotees as directed in that OA within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

The said OA was challenged by the respondents in that OA before the Hon’ble High Court in OP (CAT) No. 22 of 2026. By judgment dated 24.6.2026 the OP (CAT) No. 22 of 2026 was dismissed affirming the order of this Tribunal. Consequently, the above order has become final. The case at hand is covered by the order in OA No. 893 of 2019 as confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court and the same relief is liable to be granted.

The learned counsel for the applicant invited our attention to relief No. (iv) which was to declare that the applicants are entitled for seniority with effect from 11.4.2014, the date on which they were promoted on ad hoc basis and to reckon their service with effect from 11.4.2014. It was contended by the applicants that the vacancies to which the applicants were promoted on ad hoc basis was existing at the time when they were offered ad hoc promotion in 2014. The ad hoc promotion was also ordered after a selection process of verifying confidential records. No further selection process was done when the ad hoc promotion was regularized in 2015. In such circumstances, ad hoc promotion was liable to be converted as regular promotion.

This was replied by the respondents in the OA rejecting their claim based on DoP&T OM dated 29.10.1975 and reiterated in OM dated 30.3.1988 and OM dated 23.7.2001 that an ad hoc appointment does not bestow on any person a claim for regular appointment and that the service rendered on ad hoc basis in the grade concerned does not count for the purpose of seniority in that grade and for eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade.

The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants appears to be justifiable. We find that they were appointed on ad hoc basis after undergoing all steps for regular selection. The ad hoc appointment was followed by regular promotion with no intervening appointments or promotion. In the above circumstances, the relief now sought by the applicants herein is only to be granted. Relief No. (iv) in the OA is allowed.

Accordingly, the OA is allowed as above and the respondents are directed to recast the seniority list strictly in accordance with the directions contained in this OA as well as in OA No. 893 of 2019 as confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in OP (CAT) No. 22 of 2026 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.