Service Law – Inter-se seniority – Filling of vacant posts of private secretaries in the High Court of Delhi – Written examination was conducted – Results were declared – Writ petitions filed by some of the candidates seeking re-evaluation – High Court constituted a Special Committee, which recommended re-evaluation of 13 candidates, resulting in increased marks for all – Revised list was drawn – Issue of inter-se seniority arose – Special Committee by its decision dated 01.10.2018 accorded notional seniority as per the revised marks/merit list – Held: Considering the fact that the earlier decision of re-evaluation of 13 candidates attained the finality and thereafter, the marks of 13 candidates came to be increased, the Special Committee was absolutely justified in its decision dated 01.10.2018 to accord notional seniority as per the revised marks/merit list – Once on re-evaluation, the marks are increased the respective candidates whose marks are increased will have to be placed at appropriate place in the merit list – Non-grant of seniority based on revised marks, thus, would render the process of re-evaluation redundant.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Considering the fact that the earlier decision of re-evaluation of 13 candidates attained the finality and thereafter, the marks of 13 candidates came to be increased, the Special Committee was absolutely justified in its decision dated 01.10.2018 to accord notional seniority as per the revised marks/merit list. At the relevant time, none of the selected candidates (22 candidates – respondents herein) applied for re-evaluation and even challenged the decision of the Special Committee to re-evaluate the marks of only 13 candidates. Having failed to challenge the earlier decision to have the re-evaluation of 13 candidates only and even having not applied for the re-evaluation at the relevant time though the exercise of re-evaluation was going on thereafter, it was not open for the respondents to make a grievance subsequently that the re-evaluation of the marks of
13 candidates cannot be at their disadvantage. Once on reevaluation, the marks are increased the respective candidates whose marks are increased will have to be placed at appropriate place in the merit list. Non-grant of seniority based on revised marks, thus, would render the process of re-evaluation redundant. The candidates whose marks have been increased cannot be deprived of their position in the select list dated 30.01.2017 and on the correction of error, they were required to be given the benefit of notional seniority i.e., inter se seniority on the basis of merit. There was no fault on the part of the appellants. It was because of the wrong marking at the relevant time they were deprived of the appointments and they were not placed in the merit list and as such was required to be corrected on the revision of the marks on re-evaluation. Therefore, the Special Committee was absolutely justified in taking the decision dated 01.10.2018 to accord the notional seniority in accordance with the revised marks to candidates. The Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in setting aside the conscious decision taken by the Special Committee to accord the notional seniority in accordance with the revised marks to candidates. [Para 7][101A-F]
K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. v. Ningam Siro & Ors. (2020) 5 SCC 689 : [2019] 16 SCR 651; Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Registrar General of Delhi High Court W.P. (C) No. 712/2015; Nani Shah and Ors. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., (2007) 15 SCC 406 : [2007] 6 SCR 1027; State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava (2014) 14 SCC
720 : [2013] 11 SCR 846 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.