Seniority must follow the merit position in the selection panel rather than the recommendation date.

The applicant was selected by the UPSC for the post of Assistant Director (Leather & Footwear) Grade-II under the Ministry of MSME pursuant to Advertisement No. 06/2014, with the final merit list declared in December 2014

Although recommended later on 17.08.2015 against a vacancy within the 2014 panel, she joined service on 27.04.2017

Following the implementation of the IEDS cadre, her seniority was allegedly fixed based on her date of recommendation rather than her merit position in the 2014 panel

This resulted in officers from the 2015 recruitment cycle being placed above her and promoted to Assistant Director Grade-I in 2025

The applicant filed representations on 22.10.2025 and 07.01.2026, which remained undecided

1. Whether the statutory six-month period for exhausting remedies should be waived to allow the current application

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to refix the applicant’s seniority according to the UPSC Order of Merit (December 2014) and grant consequential benefits

3. Whether the Tribunal should direct the respondents to dispose of the applicant’s pending representations within a specific timeframe

The Tribunal applied the principles of administrative law regarding the duty of authorities to dispose of representations through speaking orders.

It also exercised discretionary powers under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to waive the waiting period for exhausting remedies to serve the interest of justice

The court emphasized that service seniority should ideally be determined by merit position in the selection panel rather than the date of recommendation or joining, subject to specific cadre rules

The Tribunal first addressed the procedural delay by allowing MA 310/00140/2026, waiving the six-month period for exhausting remedies

Regarding the merits, the applicant argued that her seniority was incorrectly fixed based on the recommendation date, which allowed subsequent recruits to supersede her in the 2025 promotion cycle

However, the applicant limited her plea to seeking a time-bound direction for the respondents to decide her pending representations

The Tribunal, without delving into the substantive merits of the seniority claim at this stage, noted that the ends of justice would be met by ensuring the administrative authority performs its duty to respond to the applicant’s grievances

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider the applicant’s representations dated 22.10.2025 and 07.01.2026 and pass a "speaking and well-reasoned order" within two months from the date of receipt of the court’s order

The Tribunal clarified that it had not entered into the merits of the seniority dispute at this stage