Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) concerning the seniority of a Sub Inspector. The petitioner, who sought seniority from 2007 despite being appointed in 2009, argued that he should have been considered for appointment in the 2007 recruitment cycle. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Girish Kathpalia, evaluated whether the petitioner had any right to seniority from the earlier recruitment year.

Background:

The petitioner, having participated in the 2007 recruitment process for the position of Sub Inspector (Male) in Delhi Police, was ultimately appointed in 2009. Although his score of 127 was just below the UR category cut-off of 128, he initially challenged the 2007 recruitment results through an application before the CAT, arguing that the vacancies should have been filled from the eligible candidates’ list. After his appointment in 2009, the petitioner sought to amend his petition to claim seniority from 2017, which was dismissed by the Tribunal.

Petitioner’s Argument:

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the vacancies unfilled in 2007 should have been filled from the eligible list of candidates, with the petitioner being 17th on the waiting list. He contended that the 2009 recruitment notification did not adequately address the unfilled vacancies and that he should have been considered as a “Departmental Candidate” for the unfilled posts. The petitioner sought seniority from 2007, claiming a right to be treated as if he had been appointed in the earlier cycle.

Respondent’s Argument:

The respondent, represented by the Commissioner of Police, argued that the CAT correctly dismissed the petitioner’s claims. They contended that the recruitment rules had been followed properly and that the petitioner, who was appointed in 2009, had no vested right to claim seniority from 2007. The respondent highlighted procedural delays in the petitioner’s review application and asserted that the Tribunal’s dismissal was justified and consistent with legal precedents.

Court’s Judgment:

The Delhi High Court carefully reviewed the case and the Tribunal’s decisions. The Court noted that the petitioner’s participation in the 2007 recruitment process did not confer any inherent right to appointment from that cycle. It emphasized that merely participating in the selection process does not grant a candidate an indefeasible right to an appointment, especially when the candidate did not make it to the merit list. The Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in *Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India* (1991) 3 SCC 47, affirming that the State is not obligated to fill all vacancies and must act without arbitrariness.

The Court also referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in *Vallampati Sathish Babu Vs. State of A.P.* (2022) 13 SCC 193, which held that a candidate not on the final select list or waitlist has no claim to appointment for future recruitment cycles. The High Court thus upheld the Tribunal’s decision, finding no grounds to alter the petitioner’s seniority or appointment status. The request for parity with candidates appointed post-results was rejected due to differing factual circumstances. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal’s orders from May 23, 2011, and September 7, 2020, and dismissed the writ petition.