Promotional seniority cannot be backdated to the vacancy year and remains prospective from the date of appointment.

The applicants (JWM-Mechanical) were promoted to the post of Assistant Works Manager (AWM) on 12.07.2013 and 26.06.2014 against vacancies pertaining to the years 2010-11 and 2012-13, respectively

They contended that the delay in holding the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meetings resulted in their loss of seniority and sought notional seniority from the date the vacancies arose, specifically requesting to dovetail their seniority with the IOFS direct recruit batches of 2010-11 and 2012-13

The respondents argued that administrative complexities following the 6th CPC and the need for rule amendments delayed the DPC, but asserted that promotions are generally prospective and seniority is governed by the rules prevalent at the time of appointment

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to notional seniority and "dovetailing" with direct recruits from the year of vacancy rather than from the date of their actual promotion

2. Whether the claim for seniority is barred by the principles of limitation and the prospective nature of the K. Meghachandra Singh judgment

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles governing inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees established in N.R. Parmar v. Union of India, which allowed reckoning seniority from the year of initiation of recruitment

The subsequent reversal in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, which overruled Parmar and held that seniority cannot be claimed before a person is borne into the cadre

DoPT OM dated 03.03.2008 (restored in principle for specific periods) stating that seniority is determined by the actual year of appointment

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the limitation period for filing applications

The Tribunal observed that the recruitment process for the applicants' promotions was initiated properly, with DPC proposals sent to the UPSC in 2013 and 2014

It noted that during the relevant period (2010-2014), the seniority of promotees was tied to the date the complete proposal was sent to the UPSC

The court reasoned that under the law established in K. Meghachandra Singh, which overruled N.R. Parmar prospectively from 19.11.2019, settled seniority cannot be reopened

The change in the legal landscape meant the applicants could not claim seniority for a period prior to their actual entry into the grade

The Tribunal found the 2021 application to be a "stale claim" attempting to challenge promotions from 2013-14, thus failing the test of limitation

The application was hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, as a belated representation does not create a fresh cause of action to revive expired claims