Seniority cannot be claimed from a date prior to formal appointment or entry into service.

The applicant was sponsored by the Employment Exchange in 1983 for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and participated in the selection process in November 1983

Although recommended for appointment in September 1984, his induction was delayed pending age relaxation from the Engineer-in-Chief Branch, which was eventually granted on November 7, 1985

Consequently, he was issued an appointment letter in May 1986 and joined service on June 10, 1986.

The respondents fixed his seniority from the date of joining, whereas the applicant claimed seniority based on the 1983 selection panel, alleging that juniors in merit were appointed earlier.

After several representations starting only in 2008, the respondents rejected his claim via orders dated August 10, 2013, and August 21, 2013, citing the belated nature of the request and the absence of a centralized common panel for that period.

The applicant subsequently challenged these rejection orders before the Tribunal.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to seniority based on the recruitment panel of 1983 despite joining the service in 1986.

2. Whether the Original Application is barred by the doctrine of limitation and laches given the lapse of over twenty years before the first representation.

The Tribunal applied the principle that seniority cannot be claimed from a date prior to an individual's entry into service.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik and Others v. State of Orissa and Others (1998), which established that a person is "recruited" only when a formal appointment order is issued and they are borne in the cadre, not from the initiation of the recruitment process.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that panel-based seniority under DoPT O.M. dated July 3, 1986, is generally applicable to centralized recruitments (e.g., via UPSC/SSC), which was not the case here.

The Tribunal reasoned that because the recruitment in 1983–84 was conducted decentrally by various Zonal Chief Engineers at different intervals, the preparation of a common merit-based seniority list was technically unfeasible.

It observed that the applicant accepted the terms of his 1986 appointment without protest and failed to challenge the circulated seniority lists for two decades.

Applying the Jagdish Ch. Patnaik precedent, the Tribunal held that seniority is contingent upon being "borne in the service"; since the applicant's formal appointment order was only issued in 1986 following age relaxation, he could not legally claim seniority from 1983.

The Tribunal further noted that the applicant's long silence until 2008 rendered the claim stale and barred by limitation.

It further held that the challenge to the seniority list after a gap of more than twenty years was barred by limitation.

The impugned orders dated August 10, 2013, and August 21, 2013, were upheld, and all requested reliefs were denied.