Gross computational errors in seniority fixation must be rectified despite delay and laches.

The applicant applied for appointment as Staff Nurse pursuant to the respondent’s notification dated 18 May 2001.

Selection was based on 50% of Higher Secondary marks and 50% of Diploma/Degree in Nursing and Midwifery marks.

She obtained 346/500 marks in CBSE and 874/1200 marks in the Diploma course.

Applying the prescribed method, her aggregate percentage was approximately 71%; however, the respondents incorrectly divided her CBSE marks by 12 instead of 5, recording her aggregate as 50.84%.

Due to the erroneous calculation, the applicant was assigned a lower merit position and was placed at Seniority No. 1103 instead of the claimed Seniority No. 1064, immediately after the relevant candidate in the Scheduled Caste category.

The final seniority list was issued on 12 November 2007, and the applicant subsequently challenged the revised seniority list dated 13 April 2017, seeking correction of her seniority and consequential benefits.

The respondents admitted that the CBSE marks had been mistakenly divided by 12 instead of 5 but opposed the application on the ground of delay and laches, contending that the applicant approached the Tribunal after approximately ten years from the final seniority list.

1. Whether the respondents’ erroneous calculation of the applicant’s qualifying marks justified correction of her seniority in the Staff Nurse cadre?

2. Whether the applicant’s claim was barred by delay and laches because she challenged the seniority position after a substantial lapse of time?

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to placement at Seniority No. 1064 with consequential benefits and recasting of the seniority list?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The applicable selection formula required the Higher Secondary and Nursing Diploma marks to be separately converted and then averaged: CBSE marks divided by 5 and Diploma marks divided by 12, followed by averaging of the two percentages.

The Tribunal relied on Chairman, State Bank of India v. M.J. James, (2022) 2 SCC 301, which distinguishes delay and laches from acquiescence and requires consideration of abandonment, prejudice, change of position and third-party rights.

It also relied on Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, (2022) 12 SCC 579, recognising that an erroneous seniority list may be revisited and freshly prepared where the applicable rules or merit position were not correctly followed.

The Tribunal further referred to Malatesh N. Kodliyavar v. State of Karnataka and the principle that a continuing illegality should not be perpetuated merely because the affected person approached the court belatedly.

The respondents’ own case established that the applicant’s CBSE marks had been divided by 12 under the mistaken assumption that she had studied under the Tamil Nadu State Higher Secondary Board, whereas the correct divisor for her CBSE marks was 5.

Applying the prescribed formula, her marks were 69.2% in CBSE and 72.8% in the Diploma course, resulting in an aggregate of 71%, not 50.8%.

The Tribunal treated this as a gross and blatant administrative error that directly affected the applicant’s merit ranking and inter se seniority.

Although the challenge was delayed, the Tribunal held that the delay could not legitimise or perpetuate an admitted error in the preparation of the seniority list.

Applying the principles in M.J. James and Ajay Kumar Shukla, it found that correction of the seniority list was necessary to give effect to the applicant’s actual marks and the proper merit position.

The Tribunal also noted that the wrong seniority position had resulted solely from the respondents’ mistake and that the applicant sought correction of the seniority list rather than a challenge to the original selection process.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s seniority had to be determined on the basis of her original marks obtained in 2001 and directed the respondents to place her at Seniority No. 1064 with all consequential benefits.

The seniority list dated 13 April 2017 was quashed and set aside, and the respondents were directed to recast the Staff Nurse seniority list consistently with the corrected merit position within three months from receipt of the order.

No order was made as to costs.