'Fence Sitters' Can't Be Permitted To Raise Seniority Disputes After Third Party Rights Are Crystallised : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 4) observed that 'fence-sitters,' i.e., persons who watch litigation from the sidelines without intervening, cannot be permitted to raise disputes relating to seniority and consequential promotion after the matter has concluded. “It is settled law that fence-sitters cannot be permitted to raise a dispute relating to seniority and consequential promotion or challenge the validity of an order after the matter has concluded. No party can claim relief as a matter of right, and one of the well-recognised grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the Court is guilty of delay and laches. A court exercising public law jurisdiction does not encourage the agitation of stale claims, particularly in matters of seniority and promotion, where the rights of third parties have crystallised in the interregnum.”, observed a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan. The principal dispute involved the Appellant, who was promoted as Assistant Engineer in 2005. This promotion was challenged by Respondent No.1 in 2005. The matter travelled through the High Court for nearly two decades, with Appellant and Respondent No.1 both receiving subsequent promotions to Assistant Executive Engineer (2007) and Executive Engineer (2016). It was only at the stage of hearing before the Supreme Court that two individuals, not a party before the High Court, sought impleadment, claiming that they were senior to the appellant and were entitled to the promotions granted to him. Rejecting their impleadment, the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan observed that they were nothing but fence sitters, watching the proceedings from the sidelines, and waiting for the outcome of the dispute to take a call on their impleadment to the proceedings to claim promotional benefits. “As far as the impleading applicant…is concerned, he was not a party to any of the proceedings before the High Court, nor did he choose to intervene or seek impleadment in the lis between the appellant and Respondent No. 1. It is only before this Court that he sought impleadment…Such a claim discloses no enforceable legal right and demonstrates that he is a complete outsider to the present proceedings…Had that been so, he would not have remained in the wings and sought impleadment only at the final stage.”, the court observed.The case arose from a challenge to G.O. (D) No. 19 dated January 18, 2005, issued by the State of Tamil Nadu, which granted T. Gnanavel notional promotion as Assistant Engineer with effect from April 14, 1997, along with monetary benefits from October 26, 1998. The order also placed him above Town Planning Inspectors who were redesignated following a departmental merger.R. Sasipriya, a Town Planning Inspector who was redesignated as Junior Engineer after the merger of departments, challenged the Government Order, primarily disputing the seniority position and seeking implementation of the 3:1 ratio in promotions.While a Single Judge of the High Court dismissed her writ petition in 2012, a Division Bench in 2024 allowed her appeal, set aside the Government Order, and directed scrutiny of the promotion process. This was challenged before the Supreme Court by both the State and Gnanavel.Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's Division Bench erred in interfering with a long-settled position.The Court held that interference at such a belated stage, nearly two decades after the Government Order, would unsettle settled service positions and create administrative uncertainty.HeadnoteService Law – Seniority and Promotion – Merger of Cadres – Interference by Court after long efflux of time –Dispute regarding inter se seniority between employees of the Engineering Department and the merged Town Planning Department of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation. G.O. (Ms.) No. 237 dated 26.09.1996 prescribed that Assistant Engineers transferred from the Town Planning Department were to be placed below the existing Assistant Engineers of the Engineering and Water Supply Department - The Government issued G.O. (D) No. 19 dated 18.01.2005 granting notional promotion to the Appellant (from the Engineering Department) with effect from 14.04.1997 and placing him above the redesignated Town Planning Inspectors - Challenged by Respondent No. 1 after a lapse of nearly two decades - The Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside G.O. (D) No. 19 long after the retirement of Respondent No. 1 and without noticing that a Three-Member Committee had previously scrutinized the promotions and found no illegality - both parties had already been promoted to higher posts subsequently, leaving no surviving contest - Interventions by third parties at the Supreme Court stage rejected as they were "fence-sitters" agitating stale claims. Impugned judgment set aside and G.O. (D) No. 19 restored. [Paras 16 - 26]Delay and Laches – Public Law Jurisdiction – Seniority Dispute – A court...

'Fence Sitters' Can't Be Permitted To Raise Seniority Disputes After Third Party Rights Are Crystallised : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

The Court cannot entertain stale claims on seniority and promotion, the judgment stated.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

'Fence Sitters' Can't Be Permitted To Raise Seniority Disputes After Third Party Rights Are Crystallised : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

The Court cannot entertain stale claims on seniority and promotion, the judgment stated.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers