Seniority of compassionate appointees must be fixed based on the calendar year, not the recruitment year.

The applicant, Ajish Sebastian, a Junior Passport Assistant (JPA) in the Regional Passport Office, Kochi, was appointed on compassionate grounds as an LD Clerk (later redesignated as JPA) on December 15, 2014, following his father's death in harness on March 6, 2010.

The cadre of JPA is maintained on an all-India basis.

In the seniority list of Group-C posts as of April 1, 2015 (Annexure-A2), the applicant was at sl.No. 591, and in the seniority list of JPAs as of April 1, 2016 (Annexure-A3), he was at sl.No. 581.

The draft seniority list published as of January 1, 2019 (Annexure-A4), placed the applicant at sl.No. 351, while some JPAs appointed simultaneously on compassionate grounds, who were between sl.Nos. 567-569 in Annexure-A3, were given sl.Nos. 83-87.

The applicant learned that this draft seniority list was prepared by applying the principle enunciated in *Union of India and others v. N.R. Parmar and others* [(2012) 13 SCC 340].

The applicant contends that the application of *N.R. Parmar* was erroneous in light of the Supreme Court's decision in *K. Meghachandra Singh and others v. Ningam Siro and others* [(2020) 5 SCC 689] which overruled *N.R. Parmar* and stated that its decision would apply prospectively to seniority lists not yet finalized.

The final seniority list as of January 1, 2019 (Annexure-A1) continued this placement, with the applicant at sl.No. 352, and many persons appointed in 2015 and 2016 (subsequent to the applicant's 2014 appointment) being placed above him.

The applicant filed a representation (Annexure-A5) which was not considered.

Respondent 4, Aparna Gopan, was impleaded as her seniority position (sl.No. 346 in Annexure-A4) would be affected by the outcome of the O.A.

Whether the Annexure-A1 seniority list, prepared based on the principles of *N.R. Parmar*, is arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional given the pronouncement in *Meghachandra Singh*?

Whether the seniority of persons appointed on compassionate grounds should be determined based on the "recruitment year" or the "calendar year" of their appointment, in accordance with the DOPT O.M. No. 20011/1/2008-Estt.(D) dated November 11, 2010 (Annexure-A9)?

Whether non-joinder of all potential affected parties invalidates the application?

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles for seniority determination laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *K. Meghachandra Singh and others v. Ningam Siro and others* [(2020) 5 SCC 689], which explicitly overruled *Union of India and others v. N.R. Parmar and others* [(2012) 13 SCC 340].

*Meghachandra* clarified that seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbent was yet to be borne in the cadre and that its decision would apply prospectively to all seniority lists not finalized as of November 19, 2019.

Additionally, the Tribunal considered the DOPT O.M. No. 20011/1/2008-Estt.(D) dated November 11, 2010 (Annexure-A9), specifically paragraph 4.8, which states that a person appointed on compassionate grounds in a particular year should be placed at the bottom of all candidates recruited/appointed through direct recruitment, promotion, etc., *in that year*, irrespective of the date of joining, clarifying that "that year" refers to the calendar year, not the recruitment year.

The Tribunal also referred to *Mukul Kumar Tyagi and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others* [(2020) 4 SCC 86], *A. Janardhana v. Union of India and others* [(1983) 3 SCC 601], and *General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and another v. A.V.R. Siddhanti and others* [(1974) 4 SCC 335] to address the issue of non-joinder of numerous affected parties.

The Court analyzed the seniority determination based on the shifting legal landscape concerning *N.R. Parmar* and *Meghachandra*.

It found that the respondents had applied *N.R. Parmar* in preparing the draft seniority list (Annexure-A4) and the final seniority list (Annexure-A1), despite *Meghachandra* having overruled *N.R. Parmar* on November 19, 2019, before the finalization of the seniority list.

*Meghachandra* explicitly held that seniority cannot be claimed from a date prior to being borne in the cadre and that its decision would apply prospectively to all seniority lists not finalized by that date.

Therefore, the application of *N.R. Parmar*'s principles to the seniority list as of January 1, 2019, which had not been finalized before the *Meghachandra* ruling, was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal further clarified the interpretation of "that year" in DOPT's O.M. for compassionate appointments, determining it to mean the calendar year, not the recruitment year, and that compassionate appointees should be placed at the bottom of recruits "in that year".

The fact that the applicant, appointed in 2014, was placed below individuals appointed in 2015 and 2016 in the final list (Annexure-A1) was found illegal and inconsistent with the correct legal principles.

Regarding the non-joinder of parties, the Tribunal, referencing Supreme Court precedents, concluded that it did not invalidate the application.

It further concluded that "that year" in the context of compassionate appointments refers to the calendar year, not the recruitment year.

Consequently, the seniority list is liable to be recast strictly in terms of *Meghachandra*.

The Original Application was disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to recast the seniority list within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order.