Administrative circulars amending seniority criteria operate prospectively and cannot retrospectively unsettle long-standing inter-se seniority.

The applicant was appointed as an Accountant on probation, subject to passing the Divisional Accountant Grade Examination (DAGE) within two years

He passed the DAGE in March 1999, earlier than private respondents nos. 5 to 11

Consequently, in seniority lists issued in 2003 and 2007, the applicant was placed above said respondents

However, following a 2018 Rajasthan High Court judgment, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) issued circulars dated 17.04.2017 and 25.02.2019

These circulars directed that the inter-se seniority of direct recruit Divisional Accountants appointed prior to 2017 be determined based on their initial merit/rank in the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) examination, rather than the date of passing the DAGE

Based on this retrospective application, the respondents issued a tentative seniority list on 01.03.2023 (Annexure A-1), wherein the applicant was placed below respondents nos. 5 to 11 because they held higher SSC ranks

The applicant challenged this list, arguing that settled seniority cannot be disturbed retrospectively

1. Whether the seniority of the applicant, long settled based on the date of passing the DAGE, could be legally altered through the retrospective application of the 2017 and 2019 circulars

2. Whether the administrative clarifications dated 17.04.2017 and 25.02.2019 governing seniority should operate prospectively or retrospectively

The Tribunal applied Para 10.2.1 and Para 7.6 of the CAG’s MSO (Administrative) Volume I regarding the seniority of direct recruits

It relied on the principle established in Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah (1997) 6 SCC 623, which prohibits the retrospective deprivation of vested rights

Furthermore, it applied the doctrine from V. Vincent Velankanni v. Union of India, holding that an Office Memorandum or Government Order cannot have retrospective effect unless expressly stated or necessary by implication

It also cited Kanishik Sinha v. State of West Bengal, emphasizing that long-settled matters should not be unsettled as it causes injustice

The Tribunal observed that the applicant had maintained seniority over the private respondents for over two decades based on the then-prevailing rules regarding the DAGE

The respondents' attempt to recast the seniority list was based on a retrospective interpretation of Para 10.2.1 of the MSO, triggered by the 2017 and 2019 circulars

Following the reasoning of the Allahabad Bench in a similar matter (O.A. No. 784/2020), the Tribunal held that administrative clarifications or modifications to seniority rules are generally prospective

The court reasoned that since the applicant’s seniority was a vested right settled at the time of his promotion and confirmation, it could not be snatched away by applying a 2017 policy to a 1995 recruitment

The Tribunal concluded that the 17.04.2017 letter must serve as a "cut-off date," meaning the new seniority criteria (SSC merit) apply only to those recruited after that date

It held that the circular dated 17.04.2017 applies prospectively and cannot be used to disturb the inter-se seniority of incumbents appointed prior to its issuance

The respondents were directed to recast the seniority list by restoring the seniority benefits to the applicant and other Divisional Accountants recruited prior to 17.04.2017

No costs were awarded