Seniority cannot be claimed from a date prior to the incumbent’s entry into the cadre.

The applicant was appointed as a Sub Area Organizer (SAO) via direct recruitment on July 28, 1994, against a vacancy from the year 1991-92

Private respondents (Nos. 5–28) were promotees from the feeder grade of Circle Organizer. Although the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the private respondents was held in June 1993 for 1992-93 vacancies, their formal promotion orders were delayed until 1995 due to technical reasons

The applicant challenged the seniority list published on January 1, 2010, arguing that as a direct recruit appointed against 1991 vacancies, he should rank above the promotees who joined the cadre after him

The official respondents contended that the inter-se seniority was fixed according to the rules prevalent at the time and that the challenge was barred by significant delay and laches

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to seniority over the promotee respondents based on the recruitment year of the vacancy rather than the date of joining the cadre.

2. Whether the principles of seniority established in N.R. Parmar remain applicable to the applicant’s case following the judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh.

3. Whether a seniority list can be unsettled after a lapse of approximately 25 years.

The Tribunal applied the principles of inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees as governed by DoP&T OMs dated July 2, 1986, and March 4, 2014

It primarily relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro (2020), which overruled Union of India v. N.R. Parmar (2012), establishing that seniority cannot be claimed from a date before an incumbent is "borne in the cadre"

The court also invoked the doctrine of laches and the settled law that seniority positions cannot be unsettled after long durations, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in Ajay Saxena v. SSB

The Tribunal found that the applicant's reliance on N.R. Parmar was misplaced because that decision was overruled by K. Meghachandra Singh, which dictates that seniority usually counts from the date of joining the cadre

The applicant joined in 1994, whereas the private respondents were already serving in the department and were cleared for promotion by a DPC in 1993. The Tribunal reasoned that the delay in issuing the respondents' formal promotion orders (until 1995) was a technical departmental issue that should not penalize the promotees

the Tribunal emphasized that the applicant remained silent for 18 years before raising an initial objection in 2011 and filed the present OA only in 2018; such a delay of nearly 25-30 years is fatal to a claim seeking to unsettle a settled seniority position

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, affirming that a settled seniority list cannot be disturbed after a gap of 25 years. No costs were ordered