Introduction:

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, through a Division Bench comprising Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela, examined a challenge to the revision of a long standing seniority list of Prohibition and Excise staff in Zone I Visakhapatnam, where the petitioners were officers who had initially joined government service as Junior Assistants and were later appointed by transfer as Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspectors in the year 2006, following which a final seniority list was issued in 2007 reflecting their placement, and thereafter the petitioners were promoted to the post of Excise Inspectors in 2007 and again in 2010 without any contemporaneous challenge to their promotions, the controversy arose when in 2016, pursuant to directions issued by the High Court in an unrelated writ petition, the Department entertained representations from direct recruits who contended that they had not been correctly placed in the seniority list according to the recruitment rules, leading the State Government to issue a Memo in 2017 directing that seniority be fixed strictly in accordance with the 1999 Circular embodied in G O Ms No 607 which clarified that quota rules apply only at the stage of recruitment and that promotees or transferees temporarily occupying direct recruit vacancies cannot claim seniority over direct recruits, and pursuant to this policy clarification, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise issued a consequential Memo directing reopening of the 2007 seniority list and revision of the same by inserting direct recruits in their rightful slots as per cyclic points, aggrieved by this reopening of a settled seniority list after nearly a decade, the petitioners first approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which dismissed their application, and thereafter approached the High Court contending that settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a long lapse of time especially when they had already been promoted to higher posts and had acquired vested service rights, thus bringing before the High Court the larger legal question whether promotees who temporarily occupied vacancies meant for direct recruits can claim permanent seniority advantage merely due to such temporary placement and whether the three year bar on reopening seniority lists applies even when revision is required to restore direct recruits to their rightful cyclic points under statutory service rules.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

The petitioners argued that the seniority list of Zone I issued in 2007 had attained finality and that their promotions to the post of Excise Inspector in 2007 and 2010 had been effected based on that list without objection from any quarter, therefore reopening the list in 2017 was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of settled service law principles, they relied strongly on a 2004 Memo issued by the State Government which specifically provided that no request for revision of seniority list older than three years shall be entertained, and they contended that this policy was framed precisely to avoid perpetual uncertainty in service careers and to ensure administrative stability, the petitioners also argued that they had not committed any illegality or manipulation in occupying the posts meant for direct recruits as such placement was done by the Department itself due to administrative exigencies, and therefore it would be unjust to penalize them retrospectively by lowering their seniority, they further submitted that once they had been promoted to higher cadres and had been working as Excise Inspectors for several years, unsettling their seniority would have cascading adverse consequences on their career progression, pensionary benefits and dignity of office, they also contended that direct recruits who joined later could not claim seniority over officers who were already working in the cadre and had gained experience, and that the principle of legitimate expectation applied in their favour since the State itself had allowed the seniority list to remain operative for nearly ten years, it was further argued that reopening of seniority after such a long period violated principles of natural justice and fairness and that administrative convenience or correction of technical errors cannot override settled rights of employees who had structured their careers on the basis of an existing seniority framework.

Arguments of the State and Direct Recruits:

On the other hand, the State and the direct recruits contended that the entire foundation of the petitioners’ seniority claim was flawed because their placement in slots meant for direct recruits was purely temporary and conditional, it was argued that under the 1999 Circular embodied in G O Ms No 607, when a promotee or appointee by transfer is placed in a vacancy earmarked for direct recruitment, his probation does not commence from the date of such placement but only from the date when he occupies a vacancy meant for promotees under the cyclic point system, therefore seniority cannot be claimed from the date of temporary occupation of a direct recruit slot, it was submitted that the cyclic point system is not a mere administrative guideline but a statutory mechanism embedded in service rules to ensure balanced intake of promotees and direct recruits, and that disturbing this structure would result in systematic injustice to direct recruits, the State also relied on a 2013 Memo issued to ensure uniform application of the 1999 Circular across all zones so that promotees temporarily occupying direct recruit vacancies are not given undue advantage, it was argued that the three year bar on revision of seniority lists applies only when disputes arise between promotees inter se but not when the revision is necessary to restore statutory entitlements of direct recruits, the respondents further submitted that there can be no estoppel against law and that if a seniority list is contrary to statutory rules, it can be corrected even after lapse of time, particularly when such correction is undertaken pursuant to judicial directions and representations of aggrieved parties, they also contended that allowing promotees to permanently retain seniority advantage merely because they were earlier placed in direct recruit slots would permanently distort the recruitment framework and demoralize direct recruits who join service through competitive examinations, and that public administration must be governed by rules rather than by fortuitous circumstances of temporary postings.

Court’s Judgement:

The Division Bench undertook a detailed examination of the service rules, the 1999 Circular, the 2013 Memo and the principles governing fixation of seniority between promotees and direct recruits, and held that the legal position was well settled that quota rules operate at the stage of recruitment but cyclic point rules govern fixation of seniority and that these two cannot be conflated, the Court noted that the 1999 Circular clearly stipulated that when a promotee occupies a post earmarked for direct recruitment, his probation shall not commence from that date and that his seniority shall be reckoned only from the date when he occupies a vacancy meant for promotees, and therefore temporary placement in a direct recruit slot cannot ripen into permanent seniority rights, the Court categorically held that simply because promotees or transferees temporarily occupied direct recruit slots, they cannot claim seniority over and above the direct recruits whose probation commences from the panel year in which they actually joined service, whereas probation of promotees commences only when their turn arises as per cyclic points, the Bench observed that there was no ambiguity or doubt in this legal principle and that it had been consistently applied in service jurisprudence, the Court further held that the three year limitation on revision of seniority lists relied upon by the petitioners cannot be applied mechanically in all situations, and that such limitation may operate where disputes are raised by promotees against other promotees or where settled inter se positions are sought to be disturbed without statutory basis, but the present case was fundamentally different because the revision was undertaken to restore direct recruits to their legally allotted slots under recruitment rules, the Court held that statutory entitlements cannot be defeated by administrative delay or oversight and that correction of an illegal seniority list cannot be barred merely by passage of time, the Bench also rejected the argument of vested rights, holding that no employee can claim vested rights in an illegality and that promotions obtained on the basis of an incorrect seniority list do not immunize such list from later correction, the Court further observed that the revision was undertaken pursuant to judicial directions and departmental representations and was supported by government policy clarifications aimed at uniform application of rules, therefore it could not be characterized as arbitrary or whimsical, while acknowledging that service stability is important, the Court held that stability cannot come at the cost of rule based fairness and that direct recruits cannot be made to suffer permanent disadvantage because promotees were earlier adjusted into their vacancies due to administrative exigencies, the Court therefore upheld the order of the Administrative Tribunal, sustained the validity of the 2017 Memo and the consequential directions for revision of the 2007 seniority list, and dismissed the writ petition, thereby affirming that statutory service rules and cyclic point principles must prevail over temporary administrative arrangements and long standing but legally flawed seniority positions.