Seniority must be refixed under the N.R. Parmar quota-rota principle despite prior departmental fixation.

The applicant, a Superintendent of Central Tax and Central Excise, was selected through the Staff Selection Commission’s Combined Graduate Level Examination process initiated by notification dated 14 April 2007. She received an offer of appointment on 7 August 2009 and joined as Inspector of Central Excise on 28 August 2009.

Her seniority was fixed with reference to her actual appointment in 2009, rather than the year in which the recruitment process was initiated. She claimed that, under the quota-rota principle recognised in N.R. Parmar v. Union of India, her seniority ought to be reckoned with the direct-recruitment vacancies of the relevant recruitment year.

The applicant relied on earlier proceedings in which the Tribunal had directed revision of seniority in accordance with N.R. Parmar, including OA No. 145/2018. That order was upheld by the Kerala High Court in OP(CAT) No. 163/2019, and subsequent attempts by the respondents to reopen or avoid implementation were rejected.

Nevertheless, by order dated 19 April 2023, the respondents rejected the applicant’s representation on the ground that her seniority had already been settled before 27 November 2012 and that N.R. Parmar operated only prospectively. The applicant challenged that order in the present OA.

Whether the applicant’s inter se seniority was required to be refixed by applying the quota-rota principle laid down in N.R. Parmar v. Union of India, with reference to the year of initiation of the recruitment process rather than the date of actual appointment?

Whether the respondents could deny the applicant the benefit of the earlier Tribunal and High Court orders directing revision of seniority on the ground that her seniority had been settled before 27 November 2012 and that N.R. Parmar was prospective?

Whether the order dated 19 April 2023 rejecting the applicant’s representation was legally sustainable?

The Tribunal applied the DoP&T seniority OMs dated 7 February 1986 and 3 July 1986, under which inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees is determined by rotation of quota based on the available direct recruits and promotees for the relevant recruitment year.

It relied on N.R. Parmar v. Union of India & Anr., (2012) 13 SCC 340, which declared the DoP&T OM dated 3 March 2008 void ab initio and held that the recruitment year is the year in which the recruitment process is initiated against the vacancy year.

The DoP&T OM dated 4 March 2014 was treated as the administrative implementation of N.R. Parmar, including the continuation of the quota-rota principle.

The Tribunal further relied on K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, (2020) 5 SCC 689, as protecting seniority already fixed in accordance with N.R. Parmar.

The binding effect of the earlier decision in OA No. 145/2018, as affirmed by the Kerala High Court, also precluded the respondents from reopening the settled inter partes determination.

The Tribunal held that the respondents’ reliance on the prospective operation of N.R. Parmar was misplaced because the applicant’s entitlement had already been adjudicated in earlier proceedings directing revision of seniority in accordance with that judgment.

OA No. 145/2018 had been upheld by the High Court, and the respondents’ review and implementation challenges had failed.

The authority’s conclusion that the applicant’s seniority had been validly settled before 27 November 2012 ignored the binding earlier orders and incorrectly relied on the post-2008 interpretation of “availability”.

Since the 3 March 2008 OM had been declared void ab initio, the relevant criterion was the initiation of the recruitment process and application of the quota-rota rule, not merely the applicant’s date of appointment in 2009.

The Tribunal therefore found the impugned order legally unsustainable.

It directed the respondents to refix the applicant’s seniority by applying the quota-rota rule laid down in N.R. Parmar, consistently with the directions in OA No. 145/2018 and the Kerala High Court’s judgment, and to grant consequential benefits.

The respondents were directed to pass the seniority-fixation order within two months from receipt of the Tribunal’s order. No order was made as to costs.