Case Note & Summary
The case involves a challenge to the seniority list dated 07.12.2021 and paragraph 7(iii) of DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021 by promotee Inspectors (Examiner) in the Customs Department. The applicants, Ashwani Kumar Anand and 10 others, were promotees who had been appointed earlier than the direct recruits Deepak Kumar, Deepak Keshri, Nitesh Chaudhary, and Pasula Sravan. The seniority list assigned seniority to the direct recruits from a back date, making them senior to the promotees. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in OA No. 991 of 2022, quashed the seniority list and the impugned paragraph of the OM, directing that seniority be determined in accordance with Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules, 2020, and the principle in K. Meghachandra Singh. The Union of India and the direct recruits filed writ petitions challenging the Tribunal's order. The High Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the Tribunal's decision. The court held that the seniority list was prepared in violation of the DoPT OM and the Recruitment Rules, and that the principle in K. Meghachandra Singh, which mandates that seniority of direct recruits cannot be antedated over promotees who were appointed earlier, was correctly applied. The court also rejected the argument that the OM was ultra vires, noting that it was consistent with the Recruitment Rules.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Determination of Seniority - K. Meghachandra Singh Principle - DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021 - The Tribunal quashed the seniority list dated 07.12.2021 and paragraph 7(iii) of the OM for ignoring the principle that seniority of direct recruits cannot be antedated over promotees who were appointed earlier. The High Court upheld the order, holding that the seniority list was prepared in violation of the OM and the Recruitment Rules. (Paras 1-10)
B) Service Law - Recruitment Rules - Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules, 2020 - The Tribunal directed that seniority be determined in accordance with Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules, 2020, which provides for seniority based on the date of appointment. The High Court affirmed this direction. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the seniority list dated 07.12.2021 and paragraph 7(iii) of DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021 are valid in light of the decision in K. Meghachandra Singh and the Recruitment Rules.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 15.03.2024 in OA No. 991 of 2022, which quashed the seniority list dated 07.12.2021 and paragraph 7(iii) of the DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021, and directed that seniority be determined in accordance with Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules, 2020.
Law Points
- Seniority must be determined in accordance with the principle laid down in K. Meghachandra Singh
- DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021
- Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules
- 2020
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO. 6152 OF 2024, WRIT PETITION NO. 18613 OF 2024, INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11295 OF 2025, INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11780 OF 2025
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ., GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
Mr. Anil Singh, Additional Solicitor General i/by Mr. Aniruddha A. Garge; Mr. Ramchandra Apte, Senior Advocate, i/by Mr. Sagar Ambedkar, Ms. Jacinta Lobo Kadam; Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy with Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy, Ms. Seema Sorte and Mr. Aalim Pinjari; Mr. Rahul Walia i/by Mr. Puneet Pathak; Mr. Vishwajeet V. Mohite
Union of India, Through Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue & Ors. (in WP/18613/2024); Deepak Kumar & Ors. (in WP/6152/2024)
Deepak Kumar & Ors. (in WP/18613/2024); Union of India, Through Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue & Ors. (in WP/6152/2024)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Challenge to seniority list and DoPT OM by promotee Inspectors (Examiner) in Customs Department.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of seniority list dated 07.12.2021 and paragraph 7(iii) of DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021, and direction to determine seniority in accordance with law.
Filing Reason
The seniority list assigned seniority to direct recruits from a back date, making them senior to promotees who were appointed earlier, allegedly ignoring the principle in K. Meghachandra Singh.
Previous Decisions
Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in OA No. 991 of 2022, quashed the seniority list and the impugned paragraph of the OM, directing seniority to be determined in accordance with Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules, 2020.
Issues
Whether the seniority list dated 07.12.2021 is valid in light of the decision in K. Meghachandra Singh and the DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021.
Whether paragraph 7(iii) of the DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021 is ultra vires the Recruitment Rules.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners (Union of India and direct recruits): The seniority list was prepared in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and the DoPT OM; the OM is not ultra vires; the Tribunal erred in quashing the list.
Respondents (promotee Inspectors): The seniority list ignored the principle in K. Meghachandra Singh that seniority of direct recruits cannot be antedated over promotees; the OM was correctly interpreted by the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi
The seniority of direct recruits cannot be antedated over promotees who were appointed earlier, in accordance with the principle laid down in K. Meghachandra Singh. The DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021 must be read harmoniously with the Recruitment Rules, and paragraph 7(iii) was correctly struck down as it allowed antedating of seniority.
Judgment Excerpts
The seniority list dated 7th December 2021 was challenged primarily on the ground that the departmental Authority ignored the decision in 'K. Meghachandra Singh' and assigned seniority to the aforementioned four co-employees from a back date.
The Tribunal quashed the seniority list and paragraph 7(iii) of the OM, directing that seniority be determined in accordance with Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules, 2020.
Procedural History
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in OA No. 991 of 2022, passed an order on 15.03.2024 quashing the seniority list dated 07.12.2021 and paragraph 7(iii) of DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021. The Union of India filed WP/18613/2024 and the direct recruits filed WP/6152/2024 challenging the Tribunal's order. The High Court heard the matters along with interim applications and dismissed the writ petitions on 27.11.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Recruitment Rules, 2020: Rule 5
