Promotees Occupying Direct Recruit Slots Temporarily Can't Claim Seniority Over Them: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the revision of a 2007 seniority list of Prohibition & Excise staff, holding that promoted officers cannot claim seniority over direct recruits who subsequently joined service simply because they temporarily occupied the slots meant for the latter.A Bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela held that the rule prohibiting the disturbance of a settled seniority list after three years does not apply when the revision is undertaken to place Direct Recruits in their allotted slots as per "cyclic points" in the service rules.In the present case, the petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Assistants and later, by transfer, to the post of Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspectors in 2006. The final seniority list for Zone-1, Visakhapatnam, bearing the names of the petitioners, was communicated in 2007. They were subsequently promoted to the post of Excise Inspectors in 2007 and 2010, with none of the promotions being challenged at that time. It is relevant to note that owing to administrative exigencies, the petitioners occupied posts meant for direct recruits. However, in 2016, pursuant to the orders of the High Court in a separate writ petition, the Department entertained a representation from direct recruits. Consequently, the State issued a Memo in 2017 directing to fix the seniority list as per a 1999 Circular (G.O. Ms. No. 607), which clarified that quota rules apply only for recruitment and that promotees occupying direct-recruit slots cannot claim seniority over them.Subsequently, a consequential memo was issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition (Excise), directing the reopening of the 2007 seniority list and its revision by inserting direct recruits into their allotted slots as per the recruitment rules.Aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the Memo and Consequential Memo of 2017 before the AP Administrative Tribunal, where the State relied on two Memos governing fixation of seniority between promotees and direct recruits : (i) the 1999 Circular and (ii) a Memo of 2013 issued to ensure uniformity across zones in applying the 1999 Circular. Taking note of the same, the Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioners.Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court. While they relied on the settled rule that a seniority list cannot be disturbed after a long lapse of time, the Court noted that the present case involved the petitioners occupying posts meant for direct recruits with a specific condition based on the 1999 Circular:"...if an employee is promoted to a post earmarked for direct recruit, his probation shall not be commenced from the date of his appointment into the slot earmarked for direct recruitment but shall be reckoned only from the date on which he would have occupied the vacancy meant for promotee", tje HC said.Noting that the petitioners, who occupied slots meant for direct recruits in the seniority list of 2007 cannot claim seniority over and above subsequent direct recruits, a Division Bench comprising Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela held,"Simply because promotees/appointees by transfer temporarily occupied direct recruit slots, they cannot claim seniority over and above the direct recruits. In so far as the direct recruits are concerned, their probation commences from the panel year in which they have joined, whereas probation of promotees/appointees by transfer commences thereafter, depending upon the slots in which their cyclic point is located.".The Court further observed: "There is no res integra or any cavil of doubt regarding the said legal principle... the petitioners cannot obstruct the Government or the Department from revising the seniority lists, including the seniority list dated 22.08.2007, if necessary".The petitioners had also argued that, since they had been promoted to higher cadres and the seniority list had been finalised years ago, it could not be unsettled now. They relied on a 2004 Memo issued by the State Government, which stated that no request to revise the seniority list for a period more than 3 years old shall be considered.Distinguishing the applicability of this rule, the Court noted that while the contention that a seniority list cannot be unsettled after three years can be accepted if "promotees are likely to be disturbed at the instance of other promotees", the present case involved revision of seniority lists by placing direct recruits in their allotted slots as per cyclic points in the service rules.Accordingly, the Division Bench upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition.Case Details:Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 31902/2017Case Title: A. SRIRANGAM DORA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHClick Here To Read/Download Order

Promotees Occupying Direct Recruit Slots Temporarily Can't Claim Seniority Over Them: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Promotees Occupying Direct Recruit Slots Temporarily Can't Claim Seniority Over Them: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers