Seniority based on N.R. Parmar remains protected despite being recorded in a provisional list.

The petitioners in CWP No. 262 of 2022 were directly recruited as Assistant Engineers (Civil/Mechanical) in HPSEBL during 2015–2016 pursuant to a requisition sent to the HPPSC on 06.09.2013. The private respondents were promoted as Assistant Engineers on 10.01.2014 against the promotional quota.

HPSEBL’s seniority list dated 19.08.2017, prepared on the basis of Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340, and the Government Office Memoranda dated 04.03.2014, 16.05.2014 and 08.12.2014, placed the direct recruits above the promotees by assigning the direct recruits seniority from the year in which the recruitment process was initiated.

The promotees’ objections were rejected on 15.02.2018, and promotions were thereafter made on the basis of the 19.08.2017 list.

During the pendency of the promotees’ challenge, the Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, (2020) 5 SCC 689, overruled N.R. Parmar but protected inter se seniority already based on N.R. Parmar and gave the ruling prospective effect.

Relying on an earlier order in Sumit Azad v. HPSEBL, HPSEBL issued a revised provisional seniority list on 22.01.2021, placing the promotees above the direct recruits.

Although the orders in Sumit Azad were subsequently set aside in LPA No. 81 of 2021 on 09.12.2021 and the matter was directed to be reheard, HPSEBL finalized the 22.01.2021 list on 16.12.2021 and granted promotions on 23.12.2021 on its basis.

The direct recruits challenged the 16.12.2021 seniority list and consequential promotions in CWP No. 262 of 2022. The promotees, in CWP No. 5879 of 2022, challenged the 2014 and 2021 Office Memoranda governing inter se seniority.

1. Whether the seniority list dated 19.08.2017, though described as provisional, had attained finality after rejection of objections and was protected under paragraph 39 of K. Meghachandra Singh.

2. Whether HPSEBL could lawfully finalize the seniority list dated 22.01.2021 on 16.12.2021 after the judicial orders on the basis of which it had been prepared were set aside and the underlying matter was directed to be reheard.

3. Whether the Office Memoranda dated 04.03.2014, 16.05.2014 and 08.12.2014, and the subsequent Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2021 as adopted by the State and HPSEBL, were unconstitutional or contrary to K. Meghachandra Singh.

4. Whether the promotions made on 23.12.2021 on the basis of the seniority list dated 16.12.2021 could be sustained.

The Court applied the principle in N.R. Parmar that inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees could be determined by rotation of quota with reference to the year of initiation of the recruitment process, including the date on which the requisition was sent for direct recruitment.

This principle was incorporated in the Office Memoranda dated 04.03.2014, 16.05.2014 and 08.12.2014.

Although K. Meghachandra Singh overruled N.R. Parmar and held that seniority ordinarily cannot be claimed from a date when the employee was not borne in the cadre, paragraph 39 expressly protected inter se seniority already based on N.R. Parmar and prescribed prospective application of the new rule.

The Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2021 consequently provided that cases decided under the 2014 Office Memorandum would not be reopened and that cases involving appointments between 27.11.2012 and 18.11.2019, where seniority had not been finalized by 18.11.2019, would ordinarily continue to be governed by the earlier instructions unless a different formulation had been adopted by a court or tribunal.

The Court also applied the principle that a seniority list becomes effectively final where objections have been adjudicated and the employer has acted upon it for promotions, notwithstanding its description as “provisional”.

The Court held that the 19.08.2017 seniority list was expressly based on N.R. Parmar and the 2014 Office Memoranda, both of which governed the field when the list was prepared.

Although labelled provisional, the list was treated by HPSEBL as final in substance: objections were rejected on 15.02.2018, the Board stated that no change was warranted, and promotions were made on its basis on 22.10.2018.

Therefore, the list fell within the protection afforded by paragraph 39 of K. Meghachandra Singh.

The Court rejected the argument that only a formally final list could receive protection, observing that paragraph 39 did not use the expression “final seniority list” and that nomenclature could not defeat the substantive effect of the list.

The subsequent list dated 22.01.2021 had been prepared pursuant to the judgment in Sumit Azad. Once that judgment and the review order were set aside by the Division Bench on 09.12.2021, the foundation of the 22.01.2021 list disappeared.

HPSEBL therefore acted unlawfully in finalizing that list on 16.12.2021 and making promotions on 23.12.2021, particularly when the matter was scheduled for rehearing on 27.12.2021.

The Court found no illegality in the 2014 or 2021 Office Memoranda, as they were consistent with the applicable transitional and prospective operation of N.R. Parmar and K. Meghachandra Singh.

The seniority list dated 16.12.2021 was quashed, and all consequential promotions made on its basis were also set aside.

The seniority list dated 19.08.2017, deemed to have attained finality on 15.02.2018, was directed to govern the inter se seniority of the direct recruits and promotees.

HPSEBL was directed to undertake the necessary review exercise within four weeks.

CWP No. 5879 of 2022, challenging the relevant Office Memoranda, was dismissed, the Court holding that those instructions were legally valid and consistent with the governing precedents.