Seniority cannot be claimed from a date before an incumbent is born in the cadre.

The six applicants, serving as Superintendents and Assistant Directors in the GST, Central Excise, and Customs departments, sought a direction to the respondents to revise their seniority in the grade of Inspector against the vacancy year 1990

They further requested consequential corrections to their seniority placements in the grades of Superintendent and Assistant Commissioner

The applicants relied on the principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. N.R. Parmar (2012) and challenged several rejection orders issued in 2018

The respondents countered that per a DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 04.03.2014, the N.R. Parmar decision applied only from 27.11.2012, whereas the applicants were appointed before that date

the respondents argued that the legal basis for the claim was extinguished by the subsequent overruling of N.R. Parmar

Whether the applicants are entitled to a retrospective revision of seniority based on vacancy years under the N.R. Parmar doctrine following its overruling by the Supreme Court

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles from K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro (2020) 5 SCC 689, which overruled Union of India v. N.R. Parmar (2012) 13 SCC 340

The Court held that under service jurisprudence, seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbent is yet to be "borne in the cadre"

It established that while seniority already fixed under N.R. Parmar remains protected, the new ruling applies prospectively from 19.11.2019, except where specific service rules explicitly mandate fixing seniority from the date of vacancy or advertisement

The Tribunal noted that the applicants' prayer was entirely contingent on the N.R. Parmar decision

the Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh explicitly disapproved and overruled the norms suggested in N.R. Parmar regarding inter se seniority

The Tribunal observed that the applicants failed to produce any relevant service rules demonstrating that their seniority must be fixed from the date of vacancy or advertisement rather than the date of appointment

Since the legal precedent cited by the applicants (N.R. Parmar) had been overruled, the Tribunal concluded that the basis for their claim had been rendered invalid

In light of this established legal position, the applicants sought to withdraw the application

The Tribunal allowed the applicants' request to withdraw the matter. The Original Application was dismissed as withdrawn