Deemed Date of Appointment – Petitioners, who were selected in the same recruitment process but appointed later due to administrative delays, were granted a deemed date of appointment from the date the first batch of candidates was appointed. This was to maintain their seniority and eligibility for promotions. (Para 20, 25, 29)

Back Wages – Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 13255/2021 sought back wages, but the court denied this claim, stating that they were not entitled to back wages as they had not been terminated but were appointed after a delay. (Para 26, 30)

Eligibility for Promotion – The court held that the petitioners, despite being appointed later, should be considered for promotion based on their deemed date of appointment, ensuring they meet the eligibility criteria of 3 years of service for Postman/Mail Guard (PM/MG) and 5 years for Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS). (Para 19, 25, 29)

Cancellation of Recruitment Process – The initial cancellation of the recruitment process by the Department of Posts was set aside by the court in an earlier judgment (Prakash Bhagaji Wani Vs. Union of India), and the petitioners were appointed after a verification process. (Para 3, 17)

Seniority – The court emphasized that seniority should be maintained as per the select list, and delayed appointments should not disadvantage the candidates. (Para 20, 22)

Deemed Date of Appointment – When appointments are delayed due to administrative reasons and not due to the fault of the candidates, the candidates are entitled to a deemed date of appointment from the date the first batch of candidates was appointed. This ensures their seniority and eligibility for promotions. (Para 20, 22, 25) Back Wages – Candidates who were not terminated but were appointed after a delay are not entitled to back wages, as the delay was not due to any fault on their part. (Para 26, 30)

The court held that the petitioners were entitled to a deemed date of appointment from the date the first batch of candidates was appointed, ensuring their seniority and eligibility for promotions. (Para 29) The court denied the claim for back wages for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 13255/2021, stating that they were not entitled to back wages as they had not been terminated but were appointed after a delay. (Para 30)

Major Acts:

• Constitution of India (COI), Article 14 – Right to Equality.

• Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, Rule 5 – Termination of temporary employees.

• Recruitment Rules for Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants, GSR 411 (E) dated 21.05.2015 – Eligibility criteria for promotion.

Subjects:

• Deemed Date of Appointment – The date from which the petitioners' service would be counted for seniority and promotion.

• Back Wages – Compensation for the period during which the petitioners were not employed due to administrative delays.

• Seniority – The order of precedence among employees based on their date of appointment.

• Recruitment Rules – The criteria and procedures for appointing and promoting employees in the postal department.

• Cancellation of Recruitment – The annulment of the selection process due to alleged malpractices.

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation – The petitioners, who were selected for the posts of Postman/Mail Guard (PM/MG) and Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) in the Department of Posts, challenged the delay in their appointments and sought a deemed date of appointment to make them eligible for promotions. (Para 2, 7)

2. Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy? – The petitioners, who were appointed in 2021 after a delayed selection process, sought a deemed date of appointment from 2016 (when the first batch was appointed) to make them eligible for promotions. Some petitioners also sought back wages. (Para 7, 11)

3. Reason for Filing the Case – The petitioners were denied permission to appear in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) due to insufficient service years, as their appointments were delayed. They argued that the delay was not their fault and sought relief from the court. (Para 7, 19)

4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now? – In an earlier judgment (Prakash Bhagaji Wani Vs. Union of India), the Bombay High Court had set aside the cancellation of the recruitment process and directed the department to reinstate terminated employees with 50% back wages. The petitioners in this case were appointed after this judgment. (Para 3, 17)

Issues:

• Whether the petitioners, who were appointed later due to administrative delays, could claim a deemed date of appointment for the purpose of seniority and promotion eligibility. (Para 19)

• Whether the petitioners were entitled to back wages for the period they were not employed due to the delayed appointment process. (Para 11, 26)

Submissions/Arguments:

• Petitioners' Arguments – The petitioners argued that the delay in their appointments was not their fault and that they should be granted a deemed date of appointment from the date the first batch of candidates was appointed. They also sought back wages for the period they were not employed. (Para 8, 10)

• Respondents' Arguments – The respondents argued that the petitioners were not eligible for promotion as they had not completed the required years of service. They also contended that the petitioners were not entitled to back wages as they were not terminated but were appointed after a delay. (Para 13, 15)