Settled seniority unchallenged for a reasonable period attains finality and cannot be reopened to contest promotions.

The applicant, appointed as Stenographer Grade ‘D’ in 1998, challenged the promotion of Respondent No. 3 (Mohd. Yousuf) to Stenographer Grade ‘C’

Respondent No. 3 had been appointed as Stenographer Grade ‘D’ (Urdu) in 1996

Following a vacancy in June 2020, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened in August 2020, which recommended Respondent No. 3 for promotion based on a combined seniority list dated June 20, 2011

The applicant contended that Stenographer Grade ‘D’ (Urdu) is a distinct cadre and not a feeder grade for Grade ‘C’ under the Recruitment Rules (RR) of 2006

Although the applicant was later promoted to Grade ‘C’ effective January 1, 2021, she sought the setting aside of Respondent No. 3’s promotion and retrospective promotion for herself

1. Whether the post of Stenographer Grade ‘D’ (Urdu) is excluded from the feeder cadre for promotion to Stenographer Grade ‘C’ under the National Commission for Minorities (Group ‘C’ & ‘D’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 2006

2. Whether a seniority list settled in 2011 and acknowledged by the applicant can be challenged collaterally in a promotion dispute after a lapse of nearly 12 years

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to retrospective promotion and the setting aside of the DPC recommendations

The Tribunal applied the National Commission for Minorities (Group ‘C’ & ‘D’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 2006, regarding the eligibility criteria for promotion from Grade ‘D’ to Grade ‘C’

It relied on established principles of service jurisprudence which dictate that seniority once settled and not assailed within a reasonable timeframe attains finality and cannot be reopened, especially when third-party rights have crystallized

Additionally, the court applied the principle that a collateral challenge to a seniority list or statutory rules is unsustainable when raised indirectly through a challenge to a promotion order

The Tribunal found the applicant’s claim of being the "sole eligible candidate" unsubstantiated by the record

It noted that the official and private respondents relied upon a combined seniority list from 2011 where Respondent No. 3 was placed above the applicant

Since the applicant had acknowledged this list and failed to challenge it for over a decade, the seniority position was deemed final

Regarding the Recruitment Rules, the Tribunal observed that the RRs for promotion to Grade ‘C’ are common to all Grade ‘D’ Stenographers and do not explicitly exclude the "Urdu" nomenclature from the feeder cadre

The DPC’s decision to follow the "seniority-cum-eligibility" criteria was held to be procedurally sound and free from arbitrariness

The Tribunal further noted that the applicant's subsequent promotion in 2021 and her failure to object to the combined cadre prior to the 2020 promotion order suggested the current challenge was a belated afterthought

It held that the challenge to the 2011 seniority list was barred by delay and acquiescence

Consequently, the prayer for retrospective promotion was denied

The Original Application was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs