Settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a long lapse of time absent fraud or misrepresentation.

The applicant was appointed as a Constable Operator in the Police Telecommunication Department on November 23, 1998

Following his induction training at PTTI Vijaypur (1999–2000), he was placed at Serial No. 58 in the 2006 tentative seniority list as a "pass" candidate

Based on this settled seniority, he was promoted to Selection Grade Constable in 2004 and Head Constable in 2009

A subsequent 2011 seniority list maintained his relative position

However, in 2016, a new tentative list was issued, followed by final orders in 2017, which drastically lowered the applicant's seniority by categorizing him as a "re-appear" candidate in two subjects based on old training award rolls

The applicant challenged these orders, arguing that his seniority had been settled and acted upon for over 15 years

1. Whether the respondents were justified in revising and disturbing the settled seniority of the applicant after a lapse of approximately 15 years based on alleged discrepancies in training records

2. Whether the retrospective alteration of seniority, after the applicant had already earned promotions based on prior lists, is legally sustainable

The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 111 of the J Police Rules, which governs the fixation of seniority in the Police Telecommunication cadre

It further relied on the settled legal principle that seniority once settled and acted upon should not be disturbed after a long lapse of time, as established by the Supreme Court in B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab (1998) and Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa (2010)

These precedents dictate that belated revision of seniority is impermissible as it creates administrative uncertainty and prejudices employees who have arranged their careers based on a settled position

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s seniority remained undisturbed in official lists from 2006 to 2011, and the department itself had granted him two promotions based on those records

No communication regarding training failure was ever issued to the applicant during this decade-plus period

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' reliance on "old records" requiring reconciliation, noting that the department cannot benefit from its own administrative lapses or discrepancies after 15 years

Since there was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation by the applicant, the Tribunal found the sudden re-classification of the applicant as a "re-appear" candidate to be arbitrary

The court reasoned that disturbing a decade-old seniority status violates service jurisprudence and the principle of finality

The respondents were directed to: (a) restore the applicant’s seniority in the cadres of Constable Operator, Selection Grade Constable, and Head Constable to the positions held prior to the 2017 orders; (b) consider the applicant for further promotion based on this restored seniority; and (c) grant notional promotion and consequential benefits if any junior was promoted in the interim, with monetary benefits payable prospectively

The exercise must be completed within three months