Bombay High Court Upholds Seniority Rules and Dismisses Plea on Promotion: “No Injustice in Following Transfer Terms Accepted by the Petitioner”

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the seniority list and promotion denial based on established rules and the petitioner’s acceptance of specific terms during her transfer. It found that seniority was properly considered from the date of her transfer and that the petitioner had no valid grounds to challenge this.

The Court held:

“There was no mistake in not considering the seniority of the petitioner for promotion from the date of her appointment. However, it was correctly considered from the date of her joining Sub Division, Parbhani.”

Facts of the Case:

1. The petitioner was selected for the position of Talathi (a revenue official) in 2010 through a District Selection Committee led by the Collector.
2. Initially appointed to Selu Sub-Division, she later requested an inter-sub-divisional transfer to Parbhani in 2017.
3. The transfer request was granted in 2019, subject to specific terms, including:
   • Seniority in the new sub-division would start from her transfer date.
   • She would not retain her original seniority from the date of her first appointment in Selu.
4. Subsequently, when a seniority list was published for promotion to the post of Circle Inspector, the petitioner found herself ranked lower due to the transfer. She challenged this, claiming her seniority should date back to her initial appointment.

Issues:

1. Seniority Issue:
   Should the petitioner’s seniority be determined based on her original appointment date or the date of her transfer?
2. Promotion Denial:
   Was the denial of promotion due to her lower rank in the seniority list lawful, or was it arbitrary?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Appointing Authority:
   The petitioner argued that since her initial selection was conducted by the Collector, the Collector should be considered the appointing authority. Consequently, she claimed that her seniority should have been maintained at the district level and not be affected by the transfer.
2. Nature of Transfer:
   She contended that her transfer to Parbhani was a routine administrative action and should not have led to a loss of seniority. She characterized it as a mere relocation within the same district.
3. Citing Government Resolutions:
   The petitioner relied on:
   • A 2019 resolution allowing seniority to be retained in cases of inter-sub-divisional transfers.
   • Later resolutions in 2023 and 2024, which purportedly clarified seniority rules for Talathis.
4. Legal Doctrine of Estoppel:
   The petitioner argued that seniority rules were statutory, and the government could not enforce conditions inconsistent with the law, even if she had accepted such terms during her transfer.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Appointing Authority:
   The respondents maintained that, as per the applicable Recruitment Rules (1984), the Sub-Divisional Officer was the actual appointing authority. The Collector’s role was limited to overseeing the selection process.
2. Transfer Terms:
   They pointed out that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted the transfer terms, explicitly agreeing that her seniority would start afresh from her transfer date. The petitioner had also submitted an undertaking acknowledging this.
3. Government Resolutions:
   The respondents argued that the 2019 resolution applied to transfers across districts, not within the same district. They emphasized that subsequent resolutions (2023 and 2024) were prospective and could not retroactively affect the petitioner’s case.
4. Precedents Cited:
   • State of Uttar Pradesh v. Meraj Ahmad (2017): Reinforced that an employee bound by the terms of a transfer cannot later dispute them.
   • L. Vishwanathan v. Union of India (2007): Confirmed that employees accepting voluntary transfers must adhere to the agreed conditions.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Recruitment Rules (1984):
   Defined the Sub-Divisional Officer (not the Collector) as the appointing authority for Talathis. Since the petitioner’s appointment and transfer followed these rules, the Court found no basis for her claim that the Collector was the appointing authority.
2. Government Resolutions:
   • The 2019 resolution allowed seniority to be carried forward only for inter-district transfers, which did not apply to the petitioner’s case.
   • Resolutions in 2023 and 2024, which clarified rules regarding district-level seniority lists, were held to be prospective and irrelevant to her case.
3. Undertaking:
   The petitioner’s acceptance of the transfer terms, including her acknowledgment that seniority would reset upon transfer, was pivotal. The Court ruled that she could not later challenge these terms.
4. Precedent Analysis:
   • The Court applied legal principles from prior judgments to affirm the binding nature of the petitioner’s transfer terms and her inability to later contest them.

Court’s Reasoning:

The Court concluded that the seniority rules and transfer terms were unambiguous. The petitioner:

• Was properly ranked in the seniority list starting from her transfer date.
• Had voluntarily accepted the terms of her transfer and could not dispute them after benefiting from the relocation.

The Court noted:

“The petitioner unequivocally admitted the terms of transfer, particularly that she would not claim the seniority on the basis of her appointment.”

Conclusion:

The Court dismissed the petition, holding:

• The Sub-Divisional Officer was the appointing authority under the applicable rules.
• The petitioner’s seniority was correctly calculated from the date of her transfer.
• The government resolutions and legal precedents cited by the petitioner did not support her case.

No costs were awarded.

Implications:

This judgment underscores the binding nature of voluntary undertakings in employment matters. Employees requesting transfers must carefully consider the terms, as these may impact seniority, promotions, and other career advancements. Additionally, the case highlights the prospective application of policy changes in government service rules.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Ex-Parte Order: Emphasizes “Litigants Must Remain Vigilant and Cannot Delegate Case Monitoring Entirely to Counsel”