Retrospective Seniority Cannot Be Claimed for Selection Processes Interrupted Prior to Final Conclusion and Appointment

The applicants, employees of the East Central Railway, participated in a selection process for the post of Junior Engineer Grade-II initiated via a notification dated 22.05.2001

After they passed the written examination, the respondents abruptly cancelled the selection on 16.11.2001 and issued a fresh notification

The applicants challenged this in O.A. No. 1551/2001, which was allowed on 04.04.2011, quashing the cancellation and directing the respondents to operate the original results

This order was upheld by the Allahabad High Court on 27.05.2011

Following the litigation, the respondents conducted a viva voce on 12.01.2012, declared the final result on 23.02.2013, and issued promotion orders on 05.06.2013

The applicants filed the present O.A. seeking quashing of the order dated 17.06.2014, claiming notional seniority and promotion effective from 2001, arguing they were wrongly placed below direct recruits appointed during the pendency of the litigation

Whether the applicants are entitled to notional seniority and promotion from the year 2001, despite the selection process (viva voce) only being completed in 2012-2013 following judicial intervention.

The court primarily relied on the principle that seniority is generally reckoned from the date of actual appointment/joining and not from the date vacancies occur, as established in K. Meghachandra Singh and others v. Ningam Siro and others (2019)

It distinguished the precedent in Balwant Singh Narwal v. State of Haryana (2008), which allows retrospective seniority only when a candidate's appointment is delayed due to litigation despite a completed selection process

The Tribunal analyzed the applicants' claim for 2001 seniority against the actual timeline of their selection. It noted that while the written exam took place in 2001, the selection process was not exhaustive at that stage because the viva voce—a mandatory component—had not been conducted

The Tribunal observed that the selection process was only finalized in 2013 after the viva voce was held in 2012 pursuant to court orders

Therefore, the ratio in Balwant Singh Narwal did not apply because, unlike in that case, the applicants here had not cleared the entire selection process in 2001

Adhering to the principle in K. Meghachandra Singh, the Tribunal reasoned that seniority cannot be granted for a period during which the applicants had not even completed the eligibility hurdles or entered the grade

There was no illegality in the respondent's order granting seniority from 17.06.2014. The Original Application was dismissed as being devoid of merit, and no costs were awarded