Seniority challenges fail without impleading affected employees and proving actual joining dates.

The 105 applicants were appointed as Goods Guards through the RRB-NTPC-2015 recruitment process and claimed that they joined the working post in February–April 2018.

The respondents issued provisional/tentative seniority lists dated 19/24 March 2021 and 4 June 2021, placing departmental promotees above the applicants.

A promotion order dated 30 June 2021 thereafter promoted departmental Goods Guards as Senior Goods Guards, excluding the applicants.

The applicants’ representations seeking correction of seniority and consequential promotion were rejected on 30 September 2021.

They challenged the seniority lists, promotion order and rejection orders under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The respondents objected, inter alia, to non-joinder of affected employees and disputed the applicants’ dates of joining, relying upon inconsistent representations and training records.

Whether the Original Application was liable to fail for non-joinder of employees whose seniority and promotional rights would be directly affected by the reliefs sought.

Whether the applicants established, by reliable and consistent evidence, that they had joined the working post of Goods Guard before the departmental promotees placed above them in the seniority lists.

Whether the impugned seniority lists and consequential promotion order were contrary to the applicable rules governing inter se seniority between direct recruits and departmental promotees.

Whether the rejection orders dated 30 September 2021 required interference and whether the applicants were entitled to re-fixation of seniority and consequential promotion.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the jurisdictional basis for challenging service-related decisions before the Tribunal.

Paragraph 2 of Master Circular No. 34 dated 26 August 2019 states that seniority is ordinarily governed by the date of appointment to the grade.

Paragraph 2.1 specifically provides that, for posts partly filled by promotion and partly by direct recruitment, the relative seniority is determined by the date of regular promotion after due process for promotees and by the date of joining the working post after due process for direct recruits, while maintaining inter se seniority within each group.

The applicants relied upon Rules 302 and 306 of the Rules Regulating Seniority of Railway Servants, and the decisions in Kuttiyappan v. Union of India, Union of India v. N.R. Parmar and Arun Kumar v. Union of India; however, the Tribunal held that those principles could assist the applicants only if they first established the relevant dates of actual joining through reliable evidence.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that persons whose seniority or promotion would be directly affected by a challenge to a seniority list or promotion order are necessary parties.

The Tribunal held that the challenge, if allowed, would affect numerous employees included in the seniority lists and promotion order, although only 111 persons had been impleaded; consequently, the non-joinder was substantive and prevented complete adjudication.

On merits, the applicants’ claim depended upon proving that they had joined the working post before the departmental promotees.

However, their pleadings and documents disclosed inconsistent dates, including 19 February, 7 March, 19 April and other dates, and in some instances appeared to treat the date of reporting for training as the date of appointment or joining the working post.

The training records and conflicting representations did not reliably establish applicant-wise dates of actual joining after completion of training.

Applying Paragraph 2.1 of Master Circular No. 34, the Tribunal found that the applicants had not demonstrated that their relevant dates of joining preceded those of the departmental promotees.

Their reliance on Kuttiyappan, N.R. Parmar and Arun Kumar therefore failed because the factual foundation necessary to invoke those principles was absent.

The subsequent final seniority list dated 20 February 2022 did not independently defeat the OA, but the applicants still failed to show any basis for disturbing the seniority position reflected therein or in the impugned orders.

The Original Application was dismissed because of non-joinder of necessary parties and failure to establish, through consistent and reliable material, that the applicants had joined the working post before the departmental promotees placed above them.

The provisional/tentative seniority lists dated 19/24 March 2021 and 4 June 2021, the promotion order dated 30 June 2021 and the rejection orders dated 30 September 2021 were not interfered with.

No order as to costs was made, and all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.