Notional seniority must be granted retrospectively if appointment is delayed by administrative latches or candidate fraud.

The Petitioner applied for the post of Senior Scientific Officer (SSO) Grade-II (Explosives) in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) following a 2013 UPSC advertisement.

He was ranked third in the selection list; the first rank was Sanjeet Kumar, and the second was Narendra Kumar Biswal.

The Petitioner alleged that Biswal submitted a false experience certificate and lacked the mandatory three years of experience in explosives.

Despite a show-cause notice issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2015 confirming the discrepancies, the respondents failed to disqualify Biswal or appoint the Petitioner, claiming the reserve list had expired after 18–24 months.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) initially allowed the Petitioner’s application (O.A. No. 123 of 2017) and directed his appointment, which he joined in December 2017.

The Petitioner subsequently filed a Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No. 149 of 2021) seeking notional appointment from 16.12.2014 (the date his co-candidate joined) and related seniority/promotion benefits, which the CAT dismissed.

1. Whether a candidate is entitled to notional appointment and seniority from the date their co-candidate was appointed if their own appointment was delayed due to the recruitment authority's inaction and the inclusion of an ineligible candidate.

2. Whether the expiry of a reserve list can be invoked to deny appointment when the delay in processing the list was caused by departmental laches.

If an appointment is delayed due to no fault of the candidate but due to departmental laches or the wrongful exclusion of a candidate, the candidate is entitled to be deemed appointed from the date other candidates in the same select list were appointed (C. Jayachandran v. State of Kerala (2020) 5 SCC 230).

Direct recruits are entitled to their ranking in the select list and seniority from the original appointment date if the delay was caused by the department (Pilla Sitaram Patrudu v. Union of India (1996) 8 SCC 637).

An authority cannot go behind the intent of a judicial decree or order (Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman (1970) 1 SCC 670).

The Court observed that the respondents admitted Biswal had submitted false information regarding his experience, yet they failed to formally disqualify him in a timely manner.

This inaction directly prejudiced the Petitioner, who should have been moved from the reserve list to the main select list immediately upon the disqualification of the ineligible candidate.

The Court held that the "expiry of the reserve list" was an invalid defense because the need to use the list arose within its validity period, and the delay was solely attributable to the UPSC’s two-year silence on the Petitioner’s representation.

By applying C. Jayachandran, the Court reasoned that the Petitioner was "wrongfully excluded" by the acceptance of a fraudulent application; therefore, he must be placed in the same position he would have occupied had the law been followed correctly in 2014.

The Tribunal's refusal to grant retrospective benefits in the MA was deemed an error, as it failed to recognize its own prior finding that the respondents’ inaction was the sole cause of the delay.

It held that the Petitioner is deemed to have been appointed as Senior Scientific Officer Grade-II (Explosives) w.e.f. 16.12.2014, on par with his co-candidate, Sanjeet Kumar.

The Court directed the respondents to grant the Petitioner notional fixation of pay, re-fixation of seniority, and notional promotion to the post of Assistant Director/Scientist-C w.e.f. 02.07.2019.

The Court clarified that no actual monetary benefits (back wages) shall be paid for the period prior to his actual joining.

The respondents were directed to pass necessary orders within six weeks.