Union Of India & Ors. vs V. Vijayakumar & Ors.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

We cannot find favour with the contentions and grounds raised in this appeal for the reasons that we will presently state.

Admittedly, the petitioners had settled Annexures A8 and A9 seniority list of employees in the services of the Central Passport Organisation; and respondents 1 and 2 were shown senior to the other party respondents herein.

However, subsequently, Annexure A10 Draft Seniority List was published by the appellants, in which respondents 1 and 2 herein were shown to be junior to the other party respondents; and they challenged it by filing OA No.893/2019 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (“Tribunal” for short).

The appellants contended that the revision of seniority, as attempted through Annexure A10, unsettling that finalised earlier through Annexures A8 and A9 was impermissible and contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Meghachandra Singh and others v. Ningam Siro and others [(2020) 5 SCC 689]; and sought that the same, as also Annexure A16 final seniority list, be quashed.

The learned Tribunal accepted the plea of the applicants/respondents 1 and 2 herein and allowed the OA; against which, the appellants are in appeal.

Sri.Sajith Kumar V. – learned Senior Panel Counsel for the appellants, argued that Annexure A10 Draft Seniority List was published only on account of the declarations of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an earlier judgment, namely Union of India v. N.R.Parmar [(2012) 13 SCC 340]. He contended that, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared the law in the manner as done therein, it was incumbent upon his clients to have formulated a proper policy, which they did through Ext.P6; and consequently, being enjoined to revise the seniority, as then done through Annexure A10. He added that, Annexure A16 is only a corollary progression to the stage of final seniority list; and hence that the learned Tribunal ought not to have quashed it.

Smt.Kala T.Gopi – learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, however, argued that N.R.Parmar (supra) was overruled by K.Meghachandra Singh (supra), with a specific mandate that any seniority fixed as per the ratio of the former shall not be disturbed. She pointed out that, Annexure A10 was not a final seniority list, but was only a draft one, which was dated 07.08.2019; however, admitted that this was before K.Meghachandra Singh (supra) had been delivered. She asserted that, however, when it came to Annexure A16, it is dated 28.11.2019, which is after K.Meghachandra Singh (supra) had been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; and consequently that the appellants could not have finalised the said list thereafter. She contended that, in such circumstances, the learned Tribunal has acted without error.

We find great force in the afore submissions of Smt.Kala T.Gopi.

Undoubtedly, the appellants were enjoined to act as per N.R.Parmar (supra) and to revise seniority in terms of its declarations. They cannot be faulted for having issued Annexure A10, which is a Draft Seniority List, because N.R.Parmar (supra) stood the field at that time, it being dated 07.08.2019. However, when Annexure A16 Final Seniority List had been published, N.R.Parmar (supra) stood overruled, through K.Meghachandra Singh (supra).

The acme question, therefore, is whether the appellants ought to have finalised Annexure A16 seniority list based on Annexure A10 Draft Seniority List, particularly because the revision of seniority as per N.R.Parmar (supra) had not been effected until then.

Undoubtedly, K.Meghachandra Singh (supra) postulates unreservedly that seniority, if revised in terms of N.R.Parmar (supra) ought not to be disturbed. However, since Annexure A-10 was only a draft seniority list, there is no question of the seniority of the employees being revised at that time. This is manifest since, it luculently says that the same is subject to any judgment or order of any court of law. K.Meghachandra Singh (supra) was delivered on 19.11.2019; and since, even on that day, seniority had not been revised, the appellants ought not to have taken any further steps in such regard because, as seen above, N.R.Parmar (supra) stood overruled from that day.

However, the appellants chose to finalise Annexure A16 on 28.11.2019 and then disturbed the seniority as fixed by Annexures A8 and A9 relying on N.R.Parmar (supra), which stood reversed, as on that day.

Ineluctably, therefore, the Tribunal has acted without error; and we obtain no cause to interfere.

This Original Petition is, consequently, dismissed.

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. CDR-II/582/02/2016 DATED 20.11.2019 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST APPLICANT.

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. CDR-II/582/02/2016 DATED 20.11.2019 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND APPLICANT.

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, CENTRAL PASSPORT ORGANIZATION (GROUP B POSTS GAZETTED AND NON-GAZETTED) RECRUITMENT RULES, 2010.

Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. GSR165(E); DATED CENTRAL PASSPORT ORGANIZATION ASSISTANT (GROUP B POSTS) 4.3.2014 RECRUITMENT RULES, 2013.

Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. CDR-11/560/1/2013 DATED 26TH DECEMBER, 2014 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY

Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO CDR-II/560/2/2015 DATED 15TH JUNE, 2015 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE DOPT NO. 22011/3/98-ESTT.(D) DATED 17.9.1988.

Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM BEARING NO. CDR-11/582/02/2016 DATED 22ND/25TH APRIL, 2016.

Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMO BEARING NO. CDR-11/582/02/2016 DATED 9TH FEBRUARY, 2018.

Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMO BEARING NO. CDR-11/582/08/2019 DATED 7.8.2019 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 24.8.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST APPLICANT ADDRESSED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 18.8.2019 SECOND APPLICANT ADDRESSED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8833-8835 OF 2019 DATED 19TH NOVEMBER, 2019 (MEGHACHANDRA SINGH ORS. V. NINGAM SIRO & ORS.).

Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF FIRST APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATION DATED 24.11.2019 ADDRESSED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

Annexure A15 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION 25.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND APPLICANT ADDRESSED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

Annexure A16 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMO BEARING NO. CDR-11/582/08/2019 DATED 28.11.2019.

Annexure A17 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS OF THE DOP&T COMMUNICATED UNDER OM NO. 22011/6/2013 -ESTT(D) DATED 28.5.2014

Annexure MA1 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 16.12.2019

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2025 IN O.A 893/2019 BY THE HON’BLE CAT

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 893/2019

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN O.A 893/2019

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANTS IN O.A 893/2019

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN THE O.A 893/2019

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.20011/1/2012-ESTT.(D) DATED 04.03.2014 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSION, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF M.A 579/2020 TO VACATE THE INTERIM ORDER

Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE M.A NO. 673/2020 FOR EARLY HEARING TO THE MA TO VACATE INTERIM ORDER

Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY ORDER OF M.A 579 AND M.A 673/2020 DATED 10.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE HON’BLE CAT

Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF M.A 127/2020 FOR IMPLEADMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 4 TO 9 IN O.A 893/2019

Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE M.A 51/2024 FOR IMPLEADING RESPONDENT 10 TO 13

Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2024 IN W.P(C) 8491/2024 & CM APPL. 34946/2024 OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI