Supreme Court Directs Seniority Based on Roster, Not Just Appointment Date: Dharmendra Prasad & Ors. vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. (2019) INSC 949 (06 December 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 06 December 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 949
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a seniority list be based solely on the date of appointment, or should it also consider the merit list and reservation roster? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam, clarifying that seniority must align with the reservation roster, not just the date of appointment. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

The Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam (the Nigam) advertised 241 posts for Junior Engineer (Civil) on 29th November 2004. This included reserved positions for Other Backward Classes (OBC), Scheduled Castes (SC), and Scheduled Tribes (ST), in accordance with the reservation policy of the Government of Uttaranchal. The Nigam was permitted by the State Government to make appointments on 3rd May, 2005, with a condition that the appointments should be made as per the prescribed roster, based on a government order dated 31st August, 2001. The selection process involved a written test and an interview. A merit list was prepared based on the marks obtained by the candidates. Appointment orders were issued in five sets from May 2005 to December 2005. A condition in the appointment letter stated that seniority would be determined later.

A tentative seniority list was published on 14th September, 2010, based on the merit list. Objections were raised, and a final seniority list was published on 28th November, 2014, also based on the merit list. This list was challenged before the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, which dismissed the challenge on 10th October, 2017. A review petition was also dismissed on 23rd November, 2017. The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital then heard the matter and set aside the Tribunal’s order, directing the Nigam to prepare a fresh seniority list based on the date of substantive appointment, as per Regulation 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Subordinate Engineering Service Regulations, 1978.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal dismissed the challenge to the seniority list, which was based on merit. The High Court, however, overturned this decision, ruling that seniority should be determined by the date of substantive appointment, as per Regulation 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Subordinate Engineering Service Regulations, 1978. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court by candidates who were higher in merit but appointed later.

Legal Framework

The key legal provisions in this case are from the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Subordinate Engineering Service Regulations, 1978:

✓ Regulation 6: “Reservation for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Backward Castes and the candidates of other categories shall be in accordance with the orders of the Government in force at the time of the recruitment.” This regulation mandates that reservations must align with government orders in effect during recruitment.

✓ Regulation 16(1): Outlines the process of reviewing applications and informing candidates about the written examination.

✓ Regulation 16(2): “Appointment authority shall prepare a list of candidates in order of merit, as is evident from the written examination, and invite for interview those candidates who attains qualification as per standard fixed by the Nigam. Marks obtained by each candidate in the interview shall be added to the marks obtained in the written examination. Final position of a candidate shall be determined by the total marks obtained him, and thereafter list will be prepared. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks, then the candidate obtaining more marks in written examination will be placed higher in the merit list. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks in both written examination and interview, then a candidate having more marks in diploma examination will be placed higher in the merit list.” This regulation details the preparation of a merit list based on written examination and interview marks.

✓ Regulation 17(1): “The Appointing Authority shall recommend the list of candidates prepared by the Selection Committee for appointment. Vacancies, at present or likely to arise in future, will be filled by the candidates of this list.” This regulation allows the Appointing Authority to recommend candidates for appointment from the prepared list.

✓ Regulation 20: “On vacancies being created, Appointing Authority shall make appointment by taking names of candidates in the order in which they stand in the list prepared under Regulation 16(2) and 17 or 18.” This regulation mandates that appointments must be made according to the merit list prepared under Regulations 16(2) and 17.

✓ Regulation 23(1): “In this Regulation, seniority of person appointed in any branch of service in any category of post shall be made as per date of substantive appointment and where two or more persons are appointed on the same date, seniority will be determined by such order in which their names are arranged in the appointment order.” This regulation states that seniority should be based on the date of substantive appointment.

The government order dated 31st August, 2001, which provides a 100-point roster for reservation, is also a crucial part of the legal framework in this case.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the High Court erred by interpreting Regulation 23 in isolation. They contended that Regulation 23 should be read harmoniously with Regulations 16, 17, and 20, which emphasize merit in appointments.
• They submitted that appointments should be made based on the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee and that seniority should follow this list.
• They argued that the fortuitous circumstance of some candidates being appointed earlier should not override the merit list.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that their appointments were made earlier than the appellants, and therefore, their seniority should be determined based on their date of appointment, as per Regulation 23.
• They contended that the government order dated 31st August, 2001, was meant to determine seniority as per the roster and not as per merit.
• They argued that the appellants did not raise any objections at the time of their appointment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue was:

✓ Whether seniority should be determined solely based on the date of appointment (as per Regulation 23) or if it should also consider the merit list and the reservation roster.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

✓ Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Subordinate Engineering Service Regulations, 1978: The court extensively relied on various regulations within this framework, especially Regulations 6, 16, 17, 20, and 23, to determine how seniority should be fixed.

✓ Government order dated 31st August, 2001: This order provided the 100-point roster for reservation, which the court held to be crucial for determining seniority.

✓ Uttarakhand Government Servant Seniority Service Rules, 2002: The court held that these rules were not applicable to the Nigam’s employees as they were not adopted by the Nigam and were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, which does not apply to statutory bodies.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Subordinate Engineering Service Regulations, 1978 was interpreted by the Court to mean that seniority should be based on merit and roster, not just the date of appointment. The Court harmonized Regulations 6, 16, 17, 20 and 23.

✓ The Government order dated 31st August, 2001 was considered crucial for implementing the 100-point roster in determining seniority.

✓ The Uttarakhand Government Servant Seniority Service Rules, 2002 were rejected as not applicable to the Nigam’s employees.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of merit and the reservation roster in determining seniority. The Court found that the High Court erred in relying solely on the date of appointment. The court noted that appointments were made by the Nigam in contravention of the statutory Regulations and such appointments cannot defeat the rights of the appellants only because they have not challenged the appointment of their juniors at an earlier point of time. The court also emphasized that the 100-point roster as per the government order dated 31st August, 2001, is mandatory and must be followed. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the need to ensure fairness and adherence to the established rules and regulations.

The Court’s reasoning was that Regulation 23, which stipulates seniority based on the date of appointment, cannot be read in isolation. It must be harmonized with other regulations that emphasize merit and reservation. The court stated that, “Regulation 20 mandates the appointing authority to make the appointments from amongst the candidates in order in which they stand in the list prepared under Regulations 16(2), 17 or 18.” The Court also observed that, “Any appointment made by the Nigam in contravention of the statutory Regulations cannot defeat the rights of the appellants only because they have not challenged the appointment of their juniors at an earlier point of time.” The Court further clarified that, “The appointment in Regulation 23 has to be read in terms of Regulation 20 mandating the manner of appointment. Therefore, irrespective of the date of appointment, the seniority has to be fixed as per the merit of the candidates determined by the Selection Committee.”

The court rejected the argument that the Uttarakhand Government Servant Seniority Service Rules, 2002, should apply, stating that these rules were not adopted by the Nigam and were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, which does not apply to statutory bodies. The court emphasized the importance of the government order dated 31st August, 2001, for the implementation of the 100-point roster.

Key Takeaways

• Seniority should be determined based on merit and the reservation roster, not just the date of appointment.
• Statutory regulations must be read harmoniously and not in isolation.
• Government orders related to reservation must be strictly followed.
• Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution are not automatically applicable to statutory bodies unless adopted by them.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed the Nigam to recast the seniority list based on the merit list and the roster points given in the Circular dated 31st August, 2001.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that seniority in public employment should be determined not only by the date of appointment but also by merit and adherence to the reservation roster. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of service regulations and emphasizes the importance of following reservation policies. It also clarifies that rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution are not automatically applicable to statutory bodies unless adopted by them.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dharmendra Prasad & Ors. vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. clarifies that seniority in public employment must be determined by considering merit and the reservation roster, in addition to the date of appointment. The Court emphasized that regulations must be read harmoniously, and government orders related to reservation must be strictly followed. The judgment underscores the importance of fairness and adherence to established rules in determining seniority.