Promotees Allowed to Challenge Provisional Seniority List in Dispute Between Direct Recruitment and Promotion: Kerala High Court

Seniority cannot be finalized until representations of aggrieved promotees against the provisional common seniority list are considered - Kerala High Court ruled in favor of promotees challenging their placement below direct recruits in the provisional seniority list for the post of Technical Officer under the Export Inspection Council of India. Justice Viju Abraham allowed the petitioners to submit individual representations and directed the authorities to finalize the seniority list only after resolving grievances, including granting personal hearings, if requested.
The petitioners, working as Junior Scientific Assistants, claimed that delayed Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meetings denied them timely promotions, unfairly impacting their seniority vis-à-vis direct recruits appointed during the delay. The Court acknowledged that DPC delays violated established timelines and ordered redressal through fair procedural steps.

"Seniority Must Be Resolved Considering Grievances of Aggrieved Promotees"
The Court emphasized that seniority disputes between direct recruits and promotees require procedural fairness and timely grievance redressal. The provisional seniority list (Ext.P9) could not be finalized until all objections were considered and resolved by the respondent authorities. The Court stated:
"The petitioners may submit individual representations against the placement in the provisional seniority list within two weeks, and the respondent authorities must resolve these grievances within two months." [Paras 6]

The petitioners were employees of the Export Inspection Council of India, working as Junior Scientific Assistants, eligible for promotion to the post of Technical Officer after completing three years of service, as per the Export Inspection Agency (Recruitment) Rules, 1980. The rules mandate that promotions and direct recruitment to the post are to be made in a 50:50 ratio.
The petitioners argued that they became eligible for promotion in 2016, 2017, and 2018, but DPC meetings were not convened in time. While their promotions were delayed, the Council conducted direct recruitment and appointed 17 Technical Officers in 2021. When the provisional seniority list was published in 2024, the petitioners found themselves ranked below the direct recruits, which they claimed was unfair and contrary to service law principles. They sought seniority based on their eligibility dates, citing delays in the promotion process as a breach of procedural norms.
The petitioners submitted representations for promotion (Ext.P3), but the delayed DPC meeting of February 2021 was canceled, and no further steps were taken.
The main issue was whether the delayed DPC meetings and the resulting delayed promotions unfairly impacted the seniority of promotees relative to direct recruits. The petitioners argued that the provisional seniority list (Ext.P9) placed direct recruits above them unjustly. They did not challenge the appointment orders of direct recruits but only their placement in the seniority list.

The Court noted that the Government of India’s Office Memoranda mandate timely DPC meetings to ensure equitable consideration of eligible candidates for promotion. The delay in convening the DPC violated these guidelines, causing disruptions in the seniority determination process.
The Court observed that the petitioners had not challenged the appointment orders of direct recruits but only their placement in the seniority list. Hence, the Court could not grant the prayer to accord promotees seniority over direct recruits outright.
The Court emphasized that procedural fairness requires addressing grievances of promotees before finalizing the seniority list. Citing K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro [(2020) 5 SCC 689], it reiterated that seniority is determined based on the date of appointment, not the initiation of the recruitment process.
Referring to State of Haryana v. Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118], the Court underscored the importance of convening timely DPC meetings to avoid inequities in promotion and seniority disputes. It observed that procedural delays caused prejudice to the petitioners.

The Court disposed of the petition with the following directions:
1.    The petitioners were allowed to submit individual representations against their placement in the provisional common seniority list (Ext.P9) within two weeks.
2.    The respondent authorities were directed to: 
o    Consider these representations before finalizing the seniority list.
o    Take a final decision within two months after resolving all objections.
o    Provide personal hearings, either physically or via video conferencing, to petitioners and affected parties, if requested.
3.    The final seniority list is to be published only after addressing all objections and conducting hearings, ensuring fairness in the process.
The Court’s decision did not directly grant the petitioners seniority over direct recruits but provided them with a procedural remedy to contest the provisional seniority list. By requiring the authorities to address grievances before finalizing the list, the judgment ensures procedural fairness and reinforces the importance of timely DPC meetings to avoid disputes between direct recruits and promotees.
 

Decision Date: January 8, 2025