CAT Appeal in High Court Chandigarh Challenging Seniority

Last Updated on September 5, 2024 by Satish Mishra

This is a post on judgment wherein the appeal against CAT order was preferred in Punjab Haryana High Court Chandigarh against the seniority fixed by the department in compliance of CAT Tribunal Chandigarh’s order. But in contempt proceedings, the appellants were aggrieved with the compliance of order in a different manner than it ought to which is in a different way than intended.

Thus department approached High Court for fixing seniority of respondents as per settled law and court interpreted it in the right way.

Also Read- Can Transfer of Government Employees Be Challenged in Court ?

Judgment Digest on Union Territory of Chandigarh And … vs Naval Kishore Verma And Others

1. The present post will give an overview of the case Union Territory of Chandigarh And Another vs Naval Kishore Verma And Others. The major crux of the case is with regard to issue of seniority to be given to applicants appointed later due to some unavoidable issues to their subsequent appointments. There are many judgments of the Supreme Court taken as reference for solving this issue of seniority with respect to the present case. The main facts of the case are regarding the Recruitment Rules, 1999 for Government Central Craft Institute of Women, Chandigarh. The Rules mention four posts of Group Instructors wherein 75% are to be filled by promotion and the rest 25% is to be filled up by direct recruitment. Thus, the respondent no. 1 applied for the recruitment through advertisement given on 14.04.2007 but subsequently after 3 years the recommendations and interviews conducted on the respective date was annulled by the Director, Technical Education without justified reasoning and therefore the case was initiated by respondent for claiming his post as the decision of Director was completely arbitrary.

Also Read- Disciplinary Proceedings Procedure in India

2. The main focus of the petition concerns about whether the respondent no. 1 should be given the senior post as per the recommendation of Selection Committee dated. 12.09.2007 or as per the date of his joining which was on 02.04.2013 after the filing of his contempt petition. The respondent rightly owes his position as per the recommendations made by selection committee from 12.09.2007 to be considered as his actual appointment as the appointment of respondent was not delayed due to the further need of vacancies but on the account of some unavoidable litigation which was beyond the control of the respondent. To get a better perspective of the case, there are certain Supreme Court cases cited in the present judgment for passing a fair judgment amicable and acceptable to both the parties. The nature of the Judgment should be according to the principles of equity and good conscience and since it has been explained by the petitioner that the delay in appointment was not their intentional fault but was due to the interim order given by the Court. Thus, under this petition no specific party is at fault.

Also Read-   Assured Career Progression Scheme

3. Facts of the case-

Court’s Name- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAATCHANDIGARH

Petitioner-

1. Union Territory of Chandigarh and another

Respondent-

1. Naval Kishore Verma and others

Reserved date: September 04, 2019

Date of decision: February 12, 2020

Timeline of events-

• 09.2006- vacancy for direct quota arose
• 04.2007- advertisement of job vacancy
• 09.2007- recommendation given by Selection Committee for appointment
• 09.2007- interim order passed against OA No.603/CH/2007
• 09.2009- OA No.603/CH/2007 was dismissed
• 02.2010- order passed annulling the recommendations of Selection Committee dated 12.09.2007
• 02.2011- OA No.190-CH of 2010 filed by respondent no.1 was allowed and quashed the order of Director, Technical Education
• 09.2012- CWP No.23890 of 2011 and CWP No.23950 of 2011 filed by the Chandigarh Administration was dismissed
• 02.2013- letter of appointment was granted to Respondent no. 1
• 02.2013- interim order passed to not allow the respondent to join the post in terms of offer of appointment
• 04.2013- interim order was vacated
• 02.2014- OA was dismissed
• 01.2018- order given by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench

Also Read- Appointment Against Sanctioned Posts Only

Petitioner’s Arguments-

The petitioner, namely Union Territory of Chandigarh and Another has filed the writ petition against the order dated 22.03.2018 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench where the respondent was entitled to his seniority from the private respondents no 2 and 3 as per the date of his selection as Group Instructor recommended by the Selection Committee on 12.09.2007. As per the Recruitment Rules,1999 of the Government Central Crafts Institute for Women stated that there were four posts for Group Instructor, wherein 75% of them were to be filled by promotion and the remaining 25% was by direct recruitment. Thus, 3 out of 4 posts were filled up by promotion and one for direct recruitment. The respondent no. 1 applied to the advertisement given by the petitioner on 14.07.2007. Further, the respondent was recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment but it could not be effected as an Original Application was filed by Kanta Katoch who was a working instructor, for quashing of the advertisement and the Recruitment Rules, 1999 and resorted to claiming promotion for the post of Group Instructor as she was a part of the institution since 27 years. Thus, an interim order was passed by the Court to not finalise any appointments with regard to this post. Eventually the OA (original application) was dismissed on 16.09.2009.

Thereafter, the Director, Technical Education passed an order annulling the interviews conducted on 12.09.2007 and even the recommendations of the Selection Committee for the same purpose. The justification given by the director for this annulment was that the post of the Group Instructors was classified as Group B in place of Group C. Further, it has been argued by the counsel of the petitioner that mere recommendation of the Selection Committee confers no right to the person until it has been approved by the institution. It was also contended with respect to the seniority that the seniority of employees of Chandigarh Administration is governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1994. As per Rule 8 of the 1994 Rules the seniority of persons appointed shall be determined by the length of their continuous services on that particular post. The counsel also argued that the Tribunal had relied on a wrong case of N.R. Parmar and Ors. v. Union of India as the provisions relied on that case are totally different from the provisions included in the present petition and it was lastly contended that there was no fault of petitioners for the delay in appointment of the respondent no. 1 as they were just following the interim order which put stay on the appointments for the same post.

Also Read- Reservation in Promotions in Government Jobs

Respondent’s Arguments-

Respondent, namely Naval Kishore Verma And Others had applied to the post of Group Instructors in response to the advertisement dated 14.04.2007 and was further recommended by the Selection Committee but due to an original application filed by Kanta Katoch and interim order was passed to not finalise any appointment with regard to this post. The OA was dismissed on 16.09.2009 and instead of finalising the candidates the Director, Technical Education passed an order dated 12.10.2010 annulling the interviews and recommendations of Selection Committee with regard to this post. Respondent no.1 was forced to file an OA challenging the order given by the Director along with Parmindar Pal Singh. On hearing, it was found that action of Director, Technical Education of annulling the recommendations of Selection Committee after three years were highly arbitrary and the supposed justification given for the annulment, that the post of Group Instructors had been classified as Group B in place of Group C was found illegal. After the dismissal of writ petition on 19.09.2012, respondent no. 1 was not given appointment and had to file Contempt Petition and was finally offered appointment on 20.02.2013.

Also Read- Challenge Suspension from Government Job in Court

Then, coming to the main issue of the present petition which is with regard to allotting the correct seniority post to the respondent. As per the Service Rules, 1994 the seniority if the institution is decided on the basis of the continuity of the services on that post. Thus, it was contended that respondent no. 2 and 3 were promoted to group promoters before the appointment of respondent no.1 and would be senior to respondent no. 1 but the main issue is that the vacancy for direct quota arose in 01.09.2006 and his appointment was recommended on 12.09.2007 which got delayed due to inevitable litigation and an illegal order of Director, annulling the recommendations of Selection Committee for which the respondent was not responsible even a bit. Thus, the respondent no. 1 prays to get his seniority based on his recommendation dated.12.09.2007 and not on the basis of his joining date of 02.04.2013 i.e. he will be senior to respondent no. 2 and 3 as their promotion quota arose on 01.09.2007 and 01.09.2011 respectively.

Order of the Court-

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allows the petition and states that the respondent no. 1 should be placed above respondent no. 2 and 3 as per the seniority list of Group Instructor. Although, respondent no. 1 will be authorized to notional seniority only excluding the monetary benefits and the order of the Ld. Tribunal is set aside of granting the respondent his seniority from date of his recommendation of appointment along with consequential benefits.

Also Read- Reservation in Promotion Cat Tribunal Chandigarh

4. There were certain issues which are involved in the present case. Firstly, the issue was in regard to the appointment of the respondent no. 1 which got unduly delayed due to an unavoidable interim order and an order passed by the Director, Technical Education which annulled the interviews and recommendations of the Selection Committee conducted on 12.09.2007 due to some problem regarding the classification of the post of Group Instructors which was later found illegal. After attaining the appointment, another issue popped up regarding the seniority of the respondent no. 1 as he was to be appointed as group instructor before respondent no. 2 and 3 who were promoted on 01.09.2007 and 01.09.2011. These were the main controversial issues of the present petition and had to be seen from the perspective of both the parties.

Also Read-

5. List of Judgements involved-

• N R Parmar and others vs. Union of India, (2012) 13 SCC 340
• Balwant Singh Narwal v. State of Haryana, (2008) 7 SCC 728
• Surendra Narain Singh v. State of Bihar [(1998) 5 SCC 246 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1317

Also Read- Seniority Granted from the Back Date by Cat Chandigarh

6. As per the contentions and judgment referred in the particular petition, it was found by the court that the respondent no. 1 was not responsible for the delay of the appointment and even the institution was not completely at fault for delay in the appointment as an interim order was passed at first which was later dismissed, then due to the order passed by Director, Technical Education which annulled the interviews and recommendations of Selection Committee for the post of Group Instructors conducted on 12.09.2007 with the reason that the post of group instructors were classified as Class B in place of Class C. However, this order of Director was also found illegal and respondent no.1 was later appointed after filing contempt petition. The question of seniority was solved by the court stating that respondent no. 1 is entitled to seniority but excluding the monetary benefits. Thus, it is laid down that respondent no. 1 will be senior to respondent no. 2 and 3 and the previous order of Tribunal stands set aside which gave consequential benefits as well as seniority to the respondent no. 1.
7. Thus, as we look into the case of Union Territory of Chandigarh And Another vs Naval Kishore Verma And Others, it can be concluded that this case was not an absolute fault of the government institution and included various other factors which led to the delay of the appointment of the respondent, due to which the respondent had to go through various procedures of court for claiming of his right over his rightful post. In case of no original application was filed with regard to the quashing of the advertisement and Recruitment Rules, 1999 then he would have been appointed by the petitioner way before but the interim order had put stay on the appointments of the Group Instructor till the matter was solved. After the dismissal of that application further delay was due to an illegal order passed by the Director, Technical Education of the institution which was also dismissed later. Even after quashing of that order the respondent was not appointed and he was forced to file a contempt petition after which he was finally appointed. Lastly, the respondent demanded for his post based on the seniority dating from his recommendation of appointment and not on the basis of his joining date. The court adhered to the plea of respondent partially and he was allotted a post senior to respondent no. 2 and 3 but without monetary benefits. Thus, it was a case where both the parties’ interest was taken into consideration.

Also Read- Seniority of Direct Recruits Versus Promotees in Income Tax Department

For case specific advice, please contact best/top/expert Service Matter Expert Lawyer related to Seniority matters in Punjab Haryana High Court Chandigarh.

More on 99888-17966.