Puducherry CAT Restores Selected Teacher’s Seniority Over Colleagues Appointed After Qualification Rules Were Relaxed

The applicant was selected and appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in 2000, having the prescribed qualifications.

Respondents 3–5 were not included in the original select list; the Government later relaxed the educational qualification requirement, after which they were appointed.

In the 2006 tentative seniority list, the applicant was placed above respondents 3 and 4, but subsequent lists placed them above him. The final seniority list for Trained Graduate Teachers dated 17.12.2015 placed respondent 4 at seniority no. 2685 and the applicant at no. 2693.

The applicant challenged that list, seeking restoration of his seniority based on the original selection. The respondents argued, among other things, that he had failed to challenge the 2008 final seniority list for Primary School Teachers and that the OA was barred by delay.

The Tribunal relied on Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, 2024 INSC 847, for the rule that eligibility criteria announced at the commencement of recruitment cannot be changed midway unless the governing rules or advertisement permit it, and any permitted change must satisfy Article 14 and be non-arbitrary.

It also relied on B.K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512, and C. Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11, for the principle that a new selection requirement cannot be introduced after the selection process has begun.

The Tribunal considered whether the relaxation was authorised by the recruitment rules or advertisement and found that the respondents had not established such authority.

The applicant had qualified under the criteria stated in the recruitment rules and original notification, while respondents 3–5 had not met the minimum Higher Secondary marks requirement and were considered only after a later relaxation.

The Tribunal held that allowing those candidates to enter the selection and then placing them above the applicant affected the selection process and inter se seniority.

The respondents’ reliance on comparative merit did not resolve the concern, particularly because the Tribunal found no established authority in the rules or advertisement for the relaxation.

It therefore concluded that the applicant’s seniority should reflect his merit in the original selection, before the later change was applied.

It directed the competent authority to place the applicant in the seniority position warranted by his merit in the original selection, without giving effect to the subsequent relaxation, within three months of receiving the order. No costs were ordered.