Direct Recruit Seniority Cannot Be Granted Retrospectively Prior to Actual Date of Appointment Into Service.

The Review Applicants, direct recruit Inspectors of the 2012-13 recruitment year who joined in 2015, sought a review of the Tribunal's judgment dated 09.04.2026.

They contended that the judgment's observations in paragraphs 6.15 to 6.24 and 6.28 to 6.29—specifically that seniority should be reckoned from the date of appointment—were inconsistent with the final conclusion in paragraph 7(iii) and the DoPT O.M. dated 13.08.2021.

They argued that these observations unsettled their established seniority in the list dated 19.12.2024 and jeopardized promotions already granted or pending.

Simultaneously, they filed M.A. No. 2261/2026 seeking interim protection to maintain status quo regarding their seniority and promotions during the pendency of the review.

1. Whether there exists an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 09.04.2026 warranting the exercise of review jurisdiction.

2. Whether direct recruits can claim retrospective seniority from a vacancy year prior to their actual date of appointment based on DoPT O.M. dated 13.08.2021.

The Tribunal applied the principles of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, emphasizing that a review is not an "appeal in disguise" and is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record.

The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer Anr. (2023), which established that a judgment is final unless substantial and compelling circumstances exist, and that a process of long-drawn reasoning to detect an error disqualifies it from being "apparent".

DoPT O.M. dated 13.08.2021 governs inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits but does not automatically grant retrospective seniority to those not yet borne in the cadre.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicants were attempting to re-agitate and re-argue merits already decided in the Original Application, which is impermissible in a review proceeding.

The scope of the original O.A. was the applicability of post-based versus vacancy-based rosters, and the applicants' seniority was a secondary consequence rather than the primary issue.

Since the applicants were appointed only in 2015, they could not claim seniority for the 2012-13 vacancy year as a matter of right; a person not borne in service cannot claim retrospectivity unless specifically provided by law, and the vacancy year is relevant for quota maintenance, not for backdating individual seniority.

No person junior to them was shown to have been granted higher seniority.

The Review Application (R.A.) was dismissed, and consequently, the Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) for interim protection was also disposed of as being without merit.

The Tribunal ruled that the applicants' remedy for disputed seniority questions lies in independent legal proceedings rather than a review petition.