Reservation for persons with disabilities and SC/ST categories cannot be equated due to distinct legal frameworks.

The applicant, Sh. Bhanu Pratap Singh, a Group A employee in the Physically Handicapped (PH) category, is currently serving as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

He filed an Original Application (OA) seeking ante-dation of his seniority as Assistant Engineer (Civil) from 2005 or from July 16, 2007, claiming parity with Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidates who were promoted as AE-Civil from the 2000 batch of JE-Civil.

The applicant averred that he had filed objections to the provisional seniority list dated August 28, 2024, asserting that the Respondent Corporation sidestepped the issue of reservation for PH category candidates in promotion, unlike SC/ST candidates.

The applicant's principal relief sought was the ante-dation of his seniority on the contention that if reservation in promotion had been extended to PH candidates in parity with ST candidates, he would have been promoted alongside them.

However, none of the ST candidates whose promotions would be directly affected by such an ante-dation were impleaded as party respondents.

Whether the applicant is entitled to ante-dation of his seniority as AE-Civil from 2005 or July 16, 2007, based on parity with Scheduled Tribe candidates regarding promotion and seniority.

Whether the Tribunal can interfere in policy matters to equate diverse categories of reservation created under different constitutional and statutory schemes.

Whether the Original Application is maintainable without impleading affected parties whose seniority would be altered retrospectively.

The court primarily applied the principles concerning the distinct nature of reservations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and constitutional provisions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India).

It further relied on the legal principle that judicial review of policy matters is limited to examining the decision-making process, as established in cases such as Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, and subsequent decisions.

Additionally, the Tribunal applied the established legal position that seniority, once settled, cannot be unsettled after a long lapse of time without compelling legal grounds and without impleading affected parties.

The general principles underlying Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the rejection of a plaint that does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by law, were also considered.

The court reasoned that the applicant's claim for parity in promotion and seniority between PH and ST categories was not legally tenable because these reservations originate from distinct legal frameworks: constitutional provisions for SC/ST and statutory provisions (Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016) for PH persons.

The Tribunal held that it could not equate these separate categories, as their source, scope, and implementation are governed by different considerations, and such equivalence is not mandated by law.

Furthermore, the court found that the applicant's prayer effectively sought the Tribunal to reframe or reinterpret policy to create parity between distinct categories, which is beyond the permissible scope of judicial review in service jurisprudence unless there is a specific challenge to the vires of statutory provisions or policy.

Crucially, the court noted that the application was not maintainable as none of the ST candidates whose seniority would be directly impacted by the requested ante-dation were impleaded as party respondents, rendering effective adjudication impossible and violating the principle that seniority, once settled, cannot be unsettled without affecting parties.

The Tribunal also observed that there was no specific averment that the respondents failed to implement the statutory reservation for persons with disabilities or operated the roster in violation of policy.

The application was found not maintainable in its current form due to the applicant seeking parity between distinct reservation categories (PH and ST) that are governed by different legal frameworks, and the failure to implead necessary parties whose seniority would be prejudicially affected by the requested relief.

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application.

There was no order as to costs.