Delhi High Court
Santosh Vitthalrao Indraksha & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 April, 2026
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 970/2021, CM APPLs. 2620/2021, 10122/2021,
10838/2021, 53363/2022, 53364/2022, 53365/2022,
10526/2023, 10527/2023, 12863/2023 & 58225/2023
SANTOSH VITTHALRAO
INDRAKSHA & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jay Savla, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Sameer Kumar and Mr. Vaibhav
Pachauri, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj,
CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr.
Amit Kumar Rana, Advs. for UOI
Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Mr. Mahinder Singh
Hura, Mr. Saif Ali, Mr. Pushpendra S.
Bhadoriya, Mr. Vijay Sharma, Mr. Pranav
Menon, Mr. Ajith Williyam S. and Mr.
Saurav, Advs. for R-6, R-7, R-9 & R-11
Mr. M.K. Madan and Mr. Gunit Shah, Advs.
for R-15
Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj and Ms. Sakshi Saugat,
Advs. for R-10
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 02.04.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 970/2021 Page 1 of 11
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.04.2026
15:23:03
1. Respondents 6 to 161 were appointed as Technical Officers in
the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in 2015. They were
promoted as Assistant Drug Controllers2 on 1 May 2015.
2. As against this, the petitioners were appointed as ADCs by
direct recruitment between the years 2016 and 2018.
3. On 8 April 2016, the official respondents drew up a provisional
seniority list in which the petitioners were placed above the private
respondents. The private respondents represented against the said
seniority list. The representation was rejected on 25 June 2019. The
private respondents thereafter petitioned the Central Administrative
Tribunal3 by way of OA 2001/2019, claiming that they were entitled
to seniority above the petitioners as their appointment, on promotion,
was prior to the date when the petitioners were appointed as direct
recruits.
4. The petitioners, as the respondents before the Tribunal,
contended on the other hand that they had been directly recruited
against vacancies of 2014, at which time the private respondents were
not even eligible for promotion and that, therefore, they were entitled
to seniority over the private respondents.
5. The Tribunal has, by judgment dated 13 October 2020, allowed
the private respondents’ OA and set aside the seniority list dated 8
April 2016. The Tribunal has held the private respondents to be
1 “the private respondents” hereinafter
2 “ADCs”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 970/2021 Page 2 of 11
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.04.2026
15:23:03
entitled to seniority over the petitioners.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court
by means of the present writ petition.
7. We have heard Mr. Jay Savla, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, learned
CGSC for the Union of India, Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Mr. M.K. Madan
and Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the respondents at
length.
8. Mr. Savla has taken us through the sequence of events in the
present case. He points out that the petitioners were eligible for direct
recruitment as ADCs in 2014 but that, as their selection was
challenged by some of the private respondents before the Allahabad
Bench and the Principal Bench of the Tribunal Allahabad Bench and
before the High Court of Calcutta, there was a stay on their selection
process, as a result of which their appointments got delayed. It was
only after the stay was vacated by the Calcutta High Court that the
selection process culminated in the appointments of the petitioners.
He, therefore, invokes the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit, to
contend that a party cannot be prejudiced by the act of Court. He also
submits that, having themselves filed a misconceived petition
challenging the petitioners’ selection, the private respondents cannot
seek to take advantage of the said fact and claim seniority over the
petitioners merely because the petitioners came to be appointed after
3 “the Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 970/2021 Page 3 of 11
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.04.2026
15:23:03
the private respondents.
9. Mr. Savla has also placed reliance on Office Memorandum4
dated 4 March 2014, issued by the Department of Personnel and
Training5. He has particularly drawn our attention to paragraphs 5 (a)
to (e) and 7 of the said OM which may be reproduced thus:
“5. The matter has been examined in pursuance of Hon’ble
Supreme Court Judgment on 27.11.2012, in Civil Appeal No.
7514-7515/2005 in the case of N.R. Parmar vs. UOI & Ors in
consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs and it has been
decided, that the manner of determination of inter-se-seniority of
direct recruits and promotes would be as under:
a) DOPT OM No. 20011/1/2006-Estt(D) dated
3.3.2008 is treated as non-existent/withdrawn ab initio;
b) The rotation of quota based on the available direct
recruits and promotees appointed against the vacancies of a
Recruitment Year, as provided in DOPT O.M. dated
7.2.1986/3.07.1986, would continue to operate for
determination of inter se seniority between direct recrults
and promotees;
c) The available direct recruits and promotees, for
assignment of inter se seniority, would refer to the direct
recruits and promotees who are appointed against the
vacancies of a Recruitment Year;
d) Recruitment Year would be the year of initiating the
recruitment process against a vacancy year;
e) Initiation of recruitment process against a vacancy
year would be the date of sending of requisition for filling
up of vacancies to the recruiting agency in the case of direct
recruits; in the case of promotees the date on which a
proposal, complete in all respects, is sent to
UPSC/Chairman-DPC for convening of DPC to fill up the
vacancies through promotion would be the relevant date.
*****
7. As the conferment of seniority would be against the
Recruitment Year in which the recruitment process is initiated for
4 “OM”, hereinafter
5 “DOPT”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 970/2021 Page 4 of 11
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.04.2026
15:23:03
filling up of the vacancies, it is incumbent upon all administrative
authorities to ensure that the recruitment process is initiated during
the vacancy year itself. While requisition for filling up the
vacancies for direct recruitment should be sent to the recruiting
agency, complete in all respects, during the vacancy year itself, the
timelines specified in the Model Calendar for DPCs contained in
DoPT Ο.Μ. Νο.22011/9/98-Estt(D) dated 8.9.98 and the
Consolidated Instructions on DPCs contained in O.M.
No.22011/S/86-Estt(D) dated April 10, 1989 should be
scrupulously adhered to, for filling up the vacancies against
promotion quota.”
10. Mr. Savla submits that the Tribunal has not, in the impugned
judgment, taken sufficient note of the fact that the delay in
appointment of the petitioners as direct recruit ADCs was only owing
to the litigation which had been initiated by the respondents
challenging their selection. The petitioners cannot, therefore, be put to
prejudice for that reason.
11. Mr. Savla submits that, in these circumstances, the petitioners
would be entitled to the benefit of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in Union of India v. N.R. Parmar6, which granted seniority to
direct recruits from the date when the vacancies against which they
were appointed arose.
12. As such, he submits that there was no error in the seniority list
dated 8 April 2016 and, therefore, the Tribunal erred in setting it aside.
13. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we regret our
inability to agree with the submissions of Mr. Savla.
6 (2012) 13 SCC 340
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 970/2021 Page 5 of 11
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.04.2026
15:23:03
14. The principle actus curiae neminem gravabit, to our mind, does
not apply in a case such as this. The question is not as to the reason for
the appointments of the petitioners as direct recruit ADCs having
taken place after the private respondents were promoted as ADCs. The
fact of the matter is that the petitioners were appointed as direct recruit
ADCs only after the private respondents.
15. In such circumstances, the seniority can be determined only by
one of two methods. In case the principle of quota rota applies, the law
laid down in N.R. Parmar would have become relevant. N.R. Parmar,
however, stands expressly overruled in K. Meghachandra Singh v.
Ningam Siro7, which held that seniority would have to be determined
on the basis of continuous officiation, thus:
“28. Before proceeding to deal with the contention of the
appellants’ counsel vis-à-vis the judgment in N.R. Parmar, it is
necessary to observe that the law is fairly well settled in a series of
cases, that a person is disentitled to claim seniority from a date he
was not borne in service. For example, in Jagdish Ch.
Patnaik v. State of Orissa8,the Court considered the question
whether the year in which the vacancy accrues can have any
bearing for the purpose of determining the seniority irrespective of
the fact when the person is actually recruited. The Court observed
that there could be time-lag between the year when the vacancy
accrues and the year when the final recruitment is made. Referring
to the word “recruited” occurring in the Orissa Service of
Engineers Rules, 1941 the Supreme Court held in Jagdish Ch.
Patnaik that person cannot be said to have been recruited to the
service only on the basis of initiation of process of recruitment but
he is borne in the post only when, formal appointment order is
issued.
29. The above ratio in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik is followed by this
Court in several subsequent cases. It would however be appropriate
to make specific reference considering the seniority dispute in7 (2020) 5 SCC 689
8 (1998) 4 SCC 456
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 970/2021 Page 6 of 11
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.04.2026
15:23:03
reference to the Arunachal Pradesh Rules which are in pari materia
to the MPS Rules, 1965 [vide Nani Sha v. State of Arunachal
Pradesh9]. Having regard to the similar provisions, the Court
approved the view that seniority is to be reckoned not from the
date when vacancy arose but from the date on which the
appointment is made to the post. The Court particularly held that
retrospective seniority should not be granted from a day when an
employee is not even borne in the cadre so as to adversely impact
those who were validly appointed in the meantime.
30. We may also benefit by referring to the judgment in State
of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava10. This judgment is significant
since this is rendered after the N.R. Parmar decision. Here the
Court approved the ratio in Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan
Singh11, and concurred with the view that seniority should not be
reckoned retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the
relevant Service Rules. The Supreme Court held that seniority
cannot be given to an employee who is yet to be borne in the cadre
and by doing so it may adversely affect the employees who have
been appointed validly in the meantime. The law so declared
in Ashok Kumar Srivastava being the one appealing to us, is
profitably extracted as follows:
“24. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has
drawn inspiration from the recent authority in Pawan
Pratap Singh where the Court after referring to earlier
authorities in the field has culled out certain principles out
of which the following being the relevant are produced
below:
’45. (ii) Inter se seniority in a particular
service has to be determined as per the service rules.
The date of entry in a particular service or the date
of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for
fixing seniority inter se between one officer or the
other or between one group of officers and the other
recruited from different sources. Any departure
therefrom in the statutory rules, executive
instructions or otherwise must be consistent with
the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
*****
(iv) The seniority cannot be reckoned from the
9 (2007) 15 SCC 406
10 (2014) 14 SCC 720
11 (2011) 3 SCC 267
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 970/2021 Page 7 of 11
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.04.2026
15:23:03
date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be
given retrospectively unless it is so expressly
provided by the relevant service rules. It is so
because seniority cannot be given on retrospective
basis when an employee has not even been borne in
the cadre and by doing so it may adversely affect
the employees who have been appointed validly in
the meantime.’ ”
(Emphasis supplied)
16. In Meghachandra, the Supreme Court held, in categorical
terms, that N.R. Parmar did not reflect the correct legal position. A
limited protection for past cases was, however, thus provided in para
39 of the report, even while overruling N.R. Parmar:
“39. Accordingly, the decision in N.R. Parmar is overruled.
However, it is made clear that this decision will not affect the inter
se seniority already based on N.R. Parmar and the same is
protected. This decision will apply prospectively except where
seniority is to be fixed under the relevant rules from the date of
vacancy/the date of advertisement.”
Clearly, all that stands protected, in Meghachandra, are cases in
which the inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees was
already determined prior to the decision in Meghachandra.
Otherwise, the decision in Meghachandra itself covered direct
recruits, and promotees, appointed prior thereto.
17. No Parmar-based determination of inter se seniority among the
petitioners and private respondents, in the present case, took place
prior to the rendition of the judgment in Meghachandra.
18. In case quota rota does not apply, the only method by which
seniority can be fixed is on the basis of continuous officiation based
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 970/2021 Page 8 of 11
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.04.2026
15:23:03
on the date of appointment, which is what Meghachandra sanctifies
and approves.
19. We are aware of the fact that Meghachandra has been referred
to a Larger Bench. However, the Supreme Court has held in Union
Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference12
that, even where a judgment of the Supreme Court is referred to a
Larger Bench, the courts lower in the judicial hierarchy have to
continue to follow the law as it exists. As on date, therefore, Parmar
stands overruled, and Meghachandra holds the field.
20. The OM dated 4 March 2014, on which Mr. Savla relies, opens
with the following paragraph:
“The undersigned is directed to refer to the subject mentioned
above and to say that the fundamental principles of inter se
seniority of direct recruits and promotees in Central Civil
Services/posts were laid down in the Department of Personnel &
Training (DOPT) Ο.Μ. No. 9/11/55-RPS dated 29.12.1959 which
provided, inter alia, that the relative seniority of direct recruits and
of promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of
vacancies between direct recruits and promotees, which shall be
based on the quotas of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment
and promotion respectively, in the Recruitment Rules.”
21. A bare reading of the afore-extracted paragraph from the OM
dated 4 March 2014 makes the legal position crystal clear. In case the
Recruitment Rules13 provide for a quota between direct recruits and
promotees, the N.R. Parmar principle was applicable at that time
when that judgment was rendered and seniority would have to be fixed
12 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140
13 “RRs”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 970/2021 Page 9 of 11
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.04.2026
15:23:03
on quota rota basis.
22. In the present case, however, there is no inter se quota of direct
recruits and promotees provided in the RRs. The RRs clearly holds
that the post is to be filed 100% by promotion with direct recruits only
being considered in the event of promotees not being available.
23. In the absence of any quota between direct recruits and
promotes, the OM dated 4 March 2014 as well as the judgment of the
Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar would not apply.
24. Where the RRs envisages recruitment “100%” only by one
method, with other methods of recruitment only provided as default
options, the applicability of the quota-rota rule ipso facto stands ruled
out. The existence of a quota is the sine qua non for the quota-rota
rule to apply. N.R. Parmar, too, was rendered in the context of an
existing 2:1 quota in that case for recruitment.
25. De hors Parmar and Meghachandra, too, therefore, as there is,
in fact, (i) no quota provided for direct recruitment and promotion in
the RRs and (ii) no provision, in the RRs, permitting grant of
retrospective seniority to any category of appointees prior to the dates
of their appointment, inter se seniority between direct recruits and
promotees would have to be determined on the basis of continuous
officiation, i.e. with effect from the respective dates when they were
appointed as ADCs.
26. Inasmuch as the respondents’ appointment as promotees was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 970/2021 Page 10 of 11
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.04.2026
15:23:03
before the petitioners had been appointed as direct recruits, we are of
the view that the Tribunal has committed no error in holding the
respondents to be entitled to seniority over the petitioners.
27. Accordingly, no occasion arises for us to interfere with the
impugned judgment of the Tribunal.
28. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to
costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
APRIL 2, 2026/aky/ss
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 970/2021 Page 11 of 11
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.04.2026
15:23:03
[ad_1]
Source link
