Further Seniority Action Must Abide by the Decision on the Pending Representation

The applicants, who had been promoted to Assistant Superintending Archaeologist in 2021, challenged an order dated 11 June 2026 accepting Review DPC recommendations and promoting officers who had previously been left out.

They claimed those officers were placed above them in seniority, although the Review DPC recommendations concerned promotion, and alleged that the seniority placement was made without notice or hearing and contrary to the applicable catch-up rule.

The applicants had submitted a representation, which remained undecided; they also asserted urgency because the next DPC for promotion to Superintendent was being initiated.

The Tribunal disposed of the OA by directing the respondents to consider the matter.

1. Whether the applicants’ claim concerning the seniority assigned to the officers promoted pursuant to the Review DPC should be considered by the respondents.

2. Whether the Tribunal should determine the merits of the applicants’ seniority and promotion claims, or instead direct the respondents to decide their pending representation.

The order cites no specific statute, service rule, or precedent. It applies the procedural principle that the respondents must consider the applicants’ representation and decide it by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law; the Tribunal expressly leaves the merits of the seniority and promotion claims open.

It further directs that any subsequent action concerning the applicants’ seniority abide by the decision on their representation.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants’ representation had not yet been considered and therefore did not adjudicate whether the Review DPC’s recommendations justified the disputed seniority placement, whether the applicants were entitled to notice or a hearing, or whether the catch-up rule applied.

Instead, it treated the OA together with the pending representation as a matter for the respondents to decide through a reasoned order, while preserving the applicants’ claims and requiring subsequent seniority-related action to abide by that decision.

The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the applicants’ seniority or promotion claims, and directed that further action concerning their seniority abide by the respondents’ decision.

Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of; no order as to costs was made.