Supreme Court settles seniority of Military Engineers based on date of appointment: Sudhir Kumar Atrey vs. Union of India (26 October 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 26 October 2021

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka

When individuals are selected for government jobs through a common process but join at different times, how is their seniority determined? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving engineers in the Military Engineering Service (MES). The core issue was whether seniority should be based on the order of merit in the initial selection list or on the date of joining the service. The Court, in this judgment, clarified the principles for determining seniority in such cases. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka, with Justice Rastogi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The Military Engineering Service (MES) is divided into five commands: Eastern, Western, Northern, Southern, and Central. Each command is headed by a Chief Engineer. In 1982, the Engineer-in-Chief of the Army Headquarters directed the recruitment of Group ‘C’ personnel for the positions of Superintendent (Building & Roads) Grade II and Superintendent (Electrical & Mechanical) Grade II.

Following this directive, each command initiated its own selection process and published merit lists in 1983. The Western Command published a list on June 29, 1983. Appointments were made based on these lists. However, some candidates from the Western Command’s 1983 list were appointed much later, between April 1987 and April 1988.

The dispute arose when the seniority of these later appointees was determined based on their date of joining, not their position on the 1983 merit list. This led to a situation where individuals selected earlier were placed lower in seniority than those who joined later, despite being on the same merit list. The aggrieved parties sought relief, claiming their seniority should be based on their merit list position, not their delayed joining date.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, initially addressed the issue. The Tribunal noted that the existing rules did not specify how to determine seniority when candidates from the same selection panel join at different times. The Tribunal ruled that seniority should be based on the date of initial appointment, not the position in the merit list.

However, the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh took a different view, ruling in favor of seniority based on the merit list position for some candidates. This decision was upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Consequently, the matter reached the Supreme Court of India due to conflicting decisions by the High Courts.

Legal Framework

The service conditions of the employees are governed by the Military Engineering Service (Non-Industrial Class III and IV Posts) Rules, 1971 (referred to as “1971 Rules”). However, these rules do not specify the method for determining inter-se seniority of candidates selected in different commands when a combined All India seniority list is prepared.

The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum (OM) dated 3rd July, 1986, was also considered. This OM outlines principles for determining seniority of persons appointed to Central Government services. It states that the seniority of direct recruits is determined by the order of merit in which they are selected.

The relevant extract of the OM dated 3rd July, 1986 is as follows:

“2.1 The relative seniority of all direct recruits is determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for such appointment on the recommendations of the U.P.S.C. or other selecting authority, persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection being senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection.”

Arguments

The appellants argued that their seniority should be determined based on their position in the select panel of 1983, regardless of their later appointment dates. They relied on the DoPT OM dated 3rd July, 1986, which states that seniority of direct recruits should be based on their merit in the selection list. They contended that since they were part of the 1983 panel, they should be senior to those appointed later, even if those individuals joined earlier.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that seniority should be determined based on the date of joining the service. They contended that since the selections were conducted separately by each command, the principle of merit-based seniority from a single selection list should not apply. They argued that the date of joining should be the determining factor for inter-se seniority when a combined All India seniority list is prepared.

The respondents also pointed out that the 1971 Rules were silent on how to determine seniority in cases where selections are held separately by different commands and a combined seniority list is to be prepared. They argued that in the absence of specific rules, the date of joining should be the guiding principle.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the seniority of candidates selected in 1983 but appointed later (1987-1988) should be determined based on their position in the 1983 select panel or their date of joining the service.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

The Court held that while the principle of merit-based seniority is valid for candidates selected in one and the same selection, it does not apply when selections are held separately by different recruiting authorities. In such cases, the principle of initial date of appointment/continuous officiation should be the valid principle for determining inter-se seniority.

The Court cited the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(1990) 2 SCC 715] to support its view that the date of initial appointment/continuous officiation is a valid principle for determining inter-se seniority in the absence of specific rules.

The Court also noted that the appointments made from the 1983 select panel after a gap of 4-5 years were not proper. However, given the time that had passed and the fact that many individuals had been promoted and some had retired, the Court did not disturb those appointments.

The Court disapproved the view of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which had upheld the seniority of some candidates based on the 1983 merit list. However, given that those individuals had already been promoted and one had retired, the Court, in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, did not disturb their seniority.

The Supreme Court stated, “the principle of initial date of appointment /continuous officiation may be the valid principle to be considered for determination of inter se seniority in the absence of any rule or guidelines to the contrary keeping in view the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.”

The Court further observed, “the authorities must be held accountable for their arbitrary action and save the institution from uncalled for litigation.”

The Court also stated, “If any person is aggrieved with his placement in the re-casted seniority list prepared in compliance with the order of the Tribunal, he will always be at liberty to assail his placement in seniority in the independent proceedings in accordance with law.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the absence of specific rules or guidelines governing the determination of inter-se seniority when selections are conducted separately by different recruiting authorities and a combined All India seniority list is to be prepared. The Court emphasized the principle of initial date of appointment/continuous officiation as a fair and logical method in such circumstances. The Court also considered the practical implications of unsettling long-standing appointments and promotions.

Key Takeaways

• When selections are conducted separately by different recruiting authorities, the principle of initial date of appointment/continuous officiation is the valid principle for determining inter-se seniority, in the absence of specific rules.
• The principle of merit-based seniority from a single selection panel does not apply when selections are held separately by different commands.
• Authorities must be held accountable for arbitrary actions in making appointments.
• The Court has the power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice and may not disturb settled positions even if the principle is not approved by the Court.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the seniority list should be re-casted based on the initial date of appointment/date of entry into service. Any person aggrieved by their placement in the re-casted seniority list can challenge it in independent proceedings.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that when selections are conducted separately by different recruiting authorities, the principle of initial date of appointment/continuous officiation should be the valid principle for determining inter-se seniority in the absence of specific rules. This clarifies the position of law where there are no specific rules for combined seniority lists.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sudhir Kumar Atrey vs. Union of India clarifies the method for determining seniority in the Military Engineering Service when candidates are selected through separate processes but join at different times. The Court held that seniority should be based on the date of joining the service, not the position in the initial merit list. This decision provides a clear principle for determining inter-se seniority in the absence of specific rules and emphasizes the importance of accountability in government appointments.