Bombay High Court: “Seniority Must Be Based on Selection List, Not Delayed Appointment”; Directs Inclusion of Candidates in LDC Exam but Denies Back Wages

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court ruled that candidates selected under the same recruitment process but appointed at different times due to administrative delays are entitled to seniority based on the original selection list. The court directed that such candidates must be allowed to appear for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDC). However, the court refused to grant 50% back wages to all petitioners, limiting it only to those who were previously appointed, terminated, and later reinstated.

Facts of the Case

1. The Indian Postal Department initiated a recruitment drive for:
   • 1701 posts of Postman-Mail Guard (PM-MG)
   • 730 posts of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS)
2. Candidates, including the petitioners, appeared for the selection process, and the final selection list was published.
3. After the selection process was completed, the department cancelled the entire recruitment process on 25.11.2016, citing malpractices and irregularities.
4. This cancellation was challenged in Writ Petition No. 12117/2016 (Prakash Bhagaji Wani & Others v. Union of India & Others). The Bombay High Court quashed the cancellation and directed the department to:
   • Verify each candidate’s involvement in malpractice individually.
   • Reinstate those already appointed with 50% back wages.
   • Consider those not yet appointed and proceed with their appointments.
5. Following this order, the department conducted an individual inquiry and found that some candidates, including the petitioners, were untainted by malpractice. As a result:
   • 341 candidates were appointed in January 2019, including some petitioners.
   • Some additional appointments were made between February 2021 and 25.02.2021.
6. Meanwhile, the department issued a notification on 13.09.2021 for the Limited Departmental Competitive (LDC) examination for promotions to Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant.
7. The petitioners, having been appointed late due to administrative delays, applied for permission to take the LDC examination on 04.10.2021.
8. However, the department denied their participation on 08.10.2021, stating that they did not complete the required minimum service tenure because their appointments were delayed.
9. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions, seeking:
   • Seniority to be counted from the original selection list.
   • Permission to appear for the LDC examination.
   • 50% back wages, as granted to other reinstated candidates.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether candidates selected under the same recruitment process but appointed at different times are entitled to claim seniority from the date of the original selection list?
2. Whether the petitioners should be granted 50% back wages like the reinstated candidates?
3. Whether the refusal to allow the petitioners to participate in the Limited Departmental Competitive (LDC) examination was legally justified?

Petitioners’ Arguments

1. Delay in appointment was not their fault:
   • The cancellation of the recruitment process was set aside by the court, meaning it was not legally valid.
   • If there was no illegal cancellation, the petitioners would have been appointed earlier.
   • The department itself caused the delay by conducting individual inquiries.
2. Seniority should be based on the selection list:
   • Once a selection list is finalized, all candidates should be treated equally, irrespective of their actual date of appointment.
   • Precedents from the Supreme Court establish that seniority should not be affected by administrative delays.
3. All selected candidates must be treated equally:
   • The department reinstated some candidates with 50% back wages.
   • Even though some were appointed later, they were all selected through the same process.
   • Denying seniority and benefits to a portion of the selected candidates violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution.
4. Petitioners should be allowed to take the LDC Examination:
   • If the department had not delayed their appointments, they would have met the eligibility criteria for the exam.
   • The denial of participation was arbitrary and unfair.
5. Reliance on legal precedents:
   • C. Jayachandran v. State of Kerala (2020) 5 SCC 230: Held that once a selection process is completed, candidates cannot be denied seniority due to delayed appointments.
   • Balwant Singh Narwal v. State of Haryana (2008) 7 SCC 728: Affirmed that delay in appointment does not affect the right to claim seniority.
   • Pilla Sitaram Patrudu v. Union of India (1996) 8 SCC 637: Clarified that back wages are only given to employees wrongfully terminated and reinstated.

Respondents’ Arguments

1. Seniority is based on the date of actual appointment:
   • The petitioners were not appointed in 2016 but later in 2019 and 2021.
   • Seniority cannot be granted retrospectively because it depends on service tenure.
2. Back wages are not applicable to petitioners:
   • The 50% back wages were given only to those candidates who were appointed earlier, terminated, and later reinstated.
   • The petitioners were never terminated—they were appointed later for the first time.
   • Back wages are not a matter of right but are given only in cases of wrongful termination.
3. LDC examination eligibility was based on actual service tenure:
   • Since the petitioners had not completed the minimum service tenure, they were rightly denied the chance to appear.

Analysis of the Law

1. Principle of Equal Treatment in Public Employment:
   • The Supreme Court has consistently held that seniority should be based on the selection process, not administrative delays.
2. Seniority Determination:
   • If a selection process is valid, and all candidates are equal on merit, seniority should be based on the selection list.
   • The delay was due to administrative action, not the petitioners’ fault.
3. Back Wages Principle:
   • Back wages are granted only to those who were in service, wrongfully terminated, and later reinstated.
   • The petitioners were not in service earlier, so they cannot claim back wages.
4. Eligibility for the LDC Examination:
   • Since the petitioners were delayed due to the department’s fault, they should have been considered eligible.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Seniority Cannot Be Denied:
   • The court ruled that the petitioners must be given seniority from the original selection list.
   • Their appointment delay was not due to their fault, so they cannot be treated unfairly.
2. No Back Wages for Petitioners:
   • Since the petitioners were never in service before, they cannot claim back wages.
   • Back wages are granted only to those previously terminated.
3. Petitioners Must Be Allowed to Appear in LDC Examination:
   • The court held that the petitioners should not be denied the opportunity to take the LDC examination.
   • Their eligibility must be considered based on the original selection process.

Final Conclusion

• Petitioners are entitled to claim seniority from the original selection list.
• Petitioners must be allowed to appear in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDC).
• Petitioners are NOT entitled to 50% back wages.
• The decision of the department to deny seniority and LDC eligibility was arbitrary and unjustified.

Implications

1. Prevents discrimination in delayed appointments.
2. Strengthens job security for government employees.
3. Ensures fair treatment in government recruitments.
4. Sets a precedent for future recruitment disputes.

This judgment reinforces that government employees should not suffer due to bureaucratic delays and that seniority should be determined by the selection process, not the date of appointment.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Grants Bail in ₹38 Crore PMLA Case, Citing Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention, Lack of Evidence Linking Former Dean to Proceeds of Crime—”Personal Liberty Cannot Be Undermined by Indefinite Incarceration”