Deemed appointment and benefits for waiting list candidates appointed against same selection vacancies.

The applicants, Anil Kumar, Mandeep, and Sabin, were recruited as Constables in Chandigarh Police following an advertisement (Annexure A-1) for 150 posts in the pay scale of Rs. 3120-5160.

They participated in the selection process and joined service on 04.05.2010.

The applicants were initially placed on a waiting list and were subsequently appointed against vacancies that arose when some candidates from the main selection list declined appointment or were found unfit.

The main selection list candidates had joined service earlier, on 11.09.2009.

The applicants' grievance is that they were not granted the deemed date of appointment given to other candidates of the same 2009 recruitment for 150 Constable posts, leading to a denial of parity in service benefits, seniority, and gratuity.

They submitted repeated representations between 2020 and 2023 seeking fixation of seniority and consequential benefits, but no favorable decision was taken.

The respondents issued Standing Order No. 81/2015 dated 25.01.2022 (Annexure A-9) concerning promotion and seniority, which did not place the applicants at their claimed serial numbers (108 to 110) based on their recruitment batch.

Subsequently, an order dated 23.01.2024 (Annexure A-12) considered 224 Constables for promotion, including those allegedly junior to the applicants from a separate 675 IRB Constables recruitment, without settling the applicants' claim for deemed date of appointment, seniority, and promotional benefits.

The respondents argued that the applicants were appointed from a waiting list and therefore cannot claim parity with candidates from the main selection list, citing Rule 12.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, which states that seniority is governed by the date of joining service.

They also contended that the applicants were not eligible for earlier promotion as they had not completed the requisite qualifying service or did not fall within the zone of consideration.

The respondents also stated that the issue of seniority fixation for the applicants is still under consideration by a committee, and no cause of action has arisen.

Whether candidates appointed from a waiting list, against vacancies arising within the same recruitment process due to non-joining of main list candidates, are entitled to a deemed date of appointment and consequential benefits at par with the last candidate appointed under the original selection process?

The court applied the principle that where a vacancy is part of the originally notified posts, the candidate is next in merit, and the appointment was delayed due to administrative lapses or litigation, the candidate cannot be denied a deemed date of appointment merely due to a later joining date.

This principle is supported by the Tribunal’s order in Satyawan Vs. UT Chandigarh Administration, which incorporated precedents from CWP No.16007-CAT-2007 titled Satinder Kumar Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and Ors. and OA No. 2-CH-2013 titled Sundari and Ors. Vs. UT Chandigarh and Ors., upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 21656 of 2013.

Additionally, the Hon'ble High Court's decision in Nidhi Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and other connected cases (CWP-12953-2020) further affirmed that retrospective appointment benefits (excluding arrears of salary) should be granted where the delay is not attributable to the candidates.

The court noted that the selection process for the 150 Constable posts was common, culminating in a main select list and a waiting list, and the applicants were appointed from that waiting list against vacancies arising from candidates in the main list not joining.

The respondents did not show that a fresh advertisement or a separate selection process was initiated for the applicants' appointment, implying they were appointed against the same originally advertised vacancies.

The Tribunal found that denying notional benefits would penalize candidates for no fault of their own when the vacancy was part of the original notification and no new vacancy was created.

The court explicitly rejected the respondents' reliance on Rule 12.2 of the Punjab Police Rules alone, as this would ignore the administrative and judicial precedents establishing the right to a deemed date of appointment under similar circumstances.

The Tribunal's decision in Satyawan Vs. UT Chandigarh Administration directly supported the applicants' claim, as it addressed an identical issue where candidates, despite initial dismissals, were granted notional appointments due to administrative delays.

The Nidhi Sharma case further solidified the principle of granting retrospective benefits (excluding salary arrears) when the appointment delay is not attributable to the candidate.

The court set aside the impugned actions of the respondents (Annexures A-9 and A-12) to the extent they denied the applicants parity of deemed date of appointment and consequential consideration for seniority and promotion with the batch of 150 Constables recruited pursuant to Advertisement Annexure A-1.

The respondents were directed to grant the applicants a deemed date of appointment at par with the last candidate appointed under the 2009 recruitment of 150 Constables.

The applicants' service from the deemed date of appointment until actual joining shall be counted notionally for purposes of seniority, eligibility for promotion, pay fixation, pensionary benefits, gratuity, and other retiral dues.

Their seniority shall be re-fixed, and they are to be considered for promotion from the date their immediate junior was considered.

However, the applicants are not entitled to arrears of salary for the period prior to their actual date of joining service.