Settled seniority cannot be unsettled after a decade without prior notice and adherence to natural justice.

The three applicants were appointed as AC Khallasi in the Northern Railway in 2013 through the Railway Recruitment Commission (RRC)

From 2013 to 2022, they were consistently placed above the private respondents in the seniority lists

On September 7, 2022, the applicants qualified for a trade test for promotion to Technician-III

However, in February 2023—nearly ten years after the initial appointment—the respondents revised the seniority list to reflect "merit at the time of initial appointment" instead of "date of joining"

This revision resulted in the deletion of the applicants' names from the promotion select list dated September 15, 2022

The applicants’ representation against this change was rejected on March 2, 2023, on the grounds that RRC seniority must be based on the merit panel

The applicants approached the Tribunal alleging a violation of natural justice, as no notice was provided before the revision

1. Whether the respondents were legally permitted to unsettle a seniority list that had been operating for nearly ten years

2. Whether the revision of the seniority list without issuing a Show Cause Notice to the affected applicants violated the principles of natural justice

3. Whether the applicants are entitled to restoration in the select list and consequential promotion to Technician-III

The court primarily applied the principles of Natural Justice, specifically Audi Alteram Partem (the right to a fair hearing), which dictates that no person should be judged without being heard

It relied on the principle of Promissory Estoppel, preventing the administration from regressing on a settled position that had been acted upon for years

The court cited the Supreme Court precedent in Vankani v. State of Gujarat (2010), which established that seniority once settled cannot be unsettled after a long period

The court also referenced Para 305 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol. I, regarding the determination of seniority for candidates who fail to join duty within the prescribed time

The Tribunal observed that the seniority of the applicants over the private respondents had been established and maintained through successive lists in 2018, 2021, and 2022

The court found that shifting the seniority criteria from "joining date" to "merit basis" after a decade, without providing a Show Cause Notice to the applicants, constituted a "flagrant and egregious violation" of the principle of Audi Alteram Partem

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicants had already qualified for the trade test, they possessed a "locus standi" and a vested right that could not be infringed upon arbitrarily

By maintaining the original seniority for ten years, the respondents were barred by the principle of Promissory Estoppel from unilaterally altering it to the detriment of the applicants

The Tribunal concluded that the administrative error cited by the respondents could not justify such a delayed and prejudicial correction without due process

The court held that the balance of convenience lay with the applicants and directed the respondents to restore the applicants' names to the select list dated September 15, 2022

The respondents were ordered to consider the applicants for promotion to the post of Technician-III/AC effective from November 7, 2022, including the creation of "supernumerary posts" if necessary

While the applicants were granted benefits of pay fixation and seniority, the relief for arrears was denied based on the principle of "No Work No Pay"