In W.P.(C) 10668/2022-DEL HC- Seniority list in any government department is incident of service; Final List which is in force, cannot be resettled: Delhi HC
Justices Suresh Kumar Kait & Chandra Dhari Singh [28-09-2022]

Read Order: DINESH KUMAR & ORS v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS 

Mansirman Kaur

New Delhi, September 29, 2022: The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that once seniority of appointees has been fixed and is in force, it should not be disturbed.

The Division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Chandra Dhari Singh disposed of the instant petitions by observing that the selection process pertaining to the year 2016 cannot be permitted to go on and on, affecting the harmony of colleagues due to conflicts of seniority. 

The High Court of Delhi through Notice dated June 2, 2016 invited applications from the eligible officers of this Court and subordinate courts to fill up 27 vacant posts of Private Secretaries in the pay band of Rs.16,800-Rs.39,100 + Grade Pay Rs.6,600/- against 75% test quota as per Clause- b(i) of Item No.6 of Schedule II to Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rule, 1972. 

The written examination and skill tests were held on July 4, 2016 and July 5, 2016  respectively and the result thereof was declared on December 22, 2016. The final merit wise result of successful 27 candidates was uploaded on the intranet  of this Court on January 30, 2017. 

 The petitioner in writ petition of 2022 and of 2019was appointed Private Secretary in terms of recommendations of the “Final Merit List of the Private Secretary Examination-2016 dated January 30, 2017 having secured his place at Serial No.25.

Petitioner No.1-Mr.Kunal Muggu and petitioners No.2 to 21 in the were also appointed as Private Secretaries having secured their respective places in terms of recommendations of the “Final Merit List of the Private Secretary Examination-2016. 

During pendency of recruitment process and pursuant to declaration of the results of the written examination and skill test and prior to declaration of ‘Final Merit List of the Private Secretary Examination-2016  a few candidates obtained copies of their answer sheets under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and requested for re-evaluation of their answer sheets by filing representations. 

 The petitioners in the above captioned three petitions, who were the appointee as per the original ‘Final Merit List of the Private Secretary Examination-2016 challenged the revised merit lists dated October 23, 2018 and December 17, 2021 in these petitions. 

Facts in brief were that this Court through Notice dated June 2, 2016 invited applications from the eligible officers of this Court and subordinate courts for recruitment to the post of Private Secretaries for filling up 27 vacant posts and conducted the written examination and skill tests in respect thereof. Prior to declaration of final merit wise result of 27 successful candidates on January 30, 2017, three candidates, namely, Ms.Sangeeta Anand, Ms.Garima Madan and Mr.Amit Arora, filed their representations seeking rechecking of their answer sheets, which was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated January 18, 2017  observing that “there was no provision for rechecking of answer sheets in the Delhi High Court (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972. 

Thereafter, Ms.Garima Madan obtained a copy of her answer sheet under the RTI Act and made a representation requesting the competent authority to re-evaluate /re-check certain answers; grant her opportunity to appear in the interview and to put on hold the final result of the subjection examination. 

However, as noted above, the results were declared on January 30, 2017. Soon after declaration of the final result, Ms. Garima Madan, Ms.Sapna Sethi, Mr.Sumit Ghai and Ms.Sheetu Nagpal, after obtaining their copies of answer sheets under the RTI Act, filed representations seeking re-evaluation of their answer sheets. These representations were considered by the Selection Committee for Appointment of Officers of the High Court and District Courts in the meeting held on February 20, 2017  wherein representation filed by Mr.Sumit Ghai was rejected, whereas Ms.Garima Madan & Ms.Sapna Sethi were awarded 04 additional marks and Ms.Sheetu Nagpal was awarded 02 additional marks.

Three out of the above four named representationists, preferred writ petitions .The then Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice on May 23, 2017  constituted a Special Committee to decide the issues pertaining to the evaluation of certain questions in respect of the examination. 

In the light of observations of the Special Committee in the meeting held,  this Court disposed of the afore-noted eight writ petitions.  Thereafter, the “Re-evaluated Result of Candidates Already Selected and Not Earlier Selected” was declared. 

Subsequently, the Establishment of this Court through  Order bearing  dated September 17, 2018  notified the names of 26 officers who had successfully completed their probation in the post of Private Secretary pursuant to their appointments on January 30, 2017. 

 In the meanwhile, some other successful candidates, who had already been appointed to the Post of Private Secretary through original Merit Wise Result,   filed representations seeking re-evaluation of their answer sheets, however, the Special Committee through its meetings dated July 23, 2018  and October 1, 2018  rejected those representations. 

Aggrieved against the Revised Merit List dated October 23, 2018,  petitioner- Dinesh Kumar preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) 949/2019  praying for issuance of a direction to the respondent No.1 to quash the revised merit list  and to issue a fresh merit wise list of candidates in respect of Private Secretary Examination -2016 in terms that the ranks awarded to candidates in terms of result declared January 30, 2017  are not unsettled and also that the candidates who were later selected, be placed below the last selected candidate as per Notification No. 198/Estt/E-2/DHC dated March 14, 2018. 

Similarly, the petitioners- Kunal Maggo and others have preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) 7893/2019 praying for quashing of Notification  dated January 15, 2019 as well as Revised Merit List dated and have sought their appointments as per merit list dated Janauary 30, 2017. 

After considering the submissions from  both the sides and after persuing the material available on record, the Court noted that the question that was posed for consideration before this Court was    whether the merit position of 27 candidates, who were originally appointed on the post of Private Secretary by virtue of ‘Final Merit List of the Private Secretary Examination-2016’ dated January 30, 2017 can be disturbed subsequent upon appointment of seven candidates who were appointed  and also as to whether inter se seniority of already appointed 27 candidates can be unsettled in the light of the fact that re-evaluation of answer sheets was permitted and restricted to only 13 candidates and thereby, declaring the Revised Merit List dated December 17, 2021  as final and binding upon the parties.

In view of the same, the Court noted that it is a matter of fact and record that during the entire process of selection, appointment, re-evaluation, representation and writ petitions, none of the candidate, whether successful or unsuccessful, had challenged the selection and appointment and the only relief sought is that they should be placed in the list according to their merit. Perhaps all the candidates feared losing their appointments. It is not misplaced to assume here that they were aware that once the selection and appointment process is over, they being unsuccessful have no right to challenge it.

 However, in the present case an unfortunate situation had arisen and therefore, the Special Committee, to give quietus to the issue in hand, appointed the 07 unsuccessful candidates against the then 22 available vacancies under 75% test quota, but refrained to unsettle the merit of already appointed 27 candidates, the Court noted. 

In the interest of justice and in the peculiar facts of this case, and also the fact that none of the candidates had ever sought quashing of the appointment process,the Court  refrained itself  from taking coercive measures. However, the selection process pertaining to the year 2016 cannot be permitted to go on and on, affecting the harmony of colleagues due to conflicts of seniority, the Court further remarked. In the present case, besides 05 selectees and 07 non-selectees, other candidates did not get the benefit of re-evaluation at all. This Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot permit further ir-regularities if at all it has happened once, the Court stated. 

As far fixation of notional seniority of candidates was concerned, the Court noted that these candidates had appeared in the examination pertaining to the year 2016, whose merit list was declared on January 30, 2017 and pursuant to re-evaluation, vide Notification dated March 12, 2018, they were appointed Private Secretarie.  

In view of the same, the Court stated that it found that the decision dated October 1, 2018 passed by the Special Committee granting notional appointment to them from January 30, 2017 is just and proper. 

The settled legal position is that once seniority of appointees has been fixed and it is in force, it should not be disturbed. It has been already held in a catena of decisions that seniority list in any government department is an incident of service which is of critical importance to the individual and the department. A seniority list depicts the current status and future prospects of an official and therefore, cannot be unsettled without putting it in the knowledge of the affected parties.

In view of the above, the revised merit lists dated October 23, 2018 and December 17, 2021 were set aside and the petitions were accordingly disposed of.