Delhi High Court | Notional Seniority Granted from Date of Appointment Offer | Joining Within Extended Period Deemed Valid Under Service Rules
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that a petitioner who joined service within an extended period granted by judicial orders is entitled to seniority reckoned from the date stipulated in the original appointment offer. The Bench directed that the petitioner’s seniority be fixed as per her merit in the selection process with effect from the date of appointment letter. Consequential notional benefits were also ordered, with directions to the respondents to issue necessary orders within eight weeks.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking multiple reliefs. These included directions to restrain certain respondents from receiving promotions before resolution of their eligibility, ordering repeat medical examinations of other respondents, cancellation of appointments, framing of transfer policies, recognition of notional seniority, maintaining lien in her prior post, addressing salary delays, and initiating disciplinary proceedings. At the commencement of hearing, the petitioner confined her relief to one prayer: that her seniority be reckoned from March 30, 2006, the date of her appointment letter.
The facts recorded show that pursuant to Advertisement No. 10 issued by the Union Public Service Commission for three posts of Assistant Professor in Ophthalmology, the petitioner applied, was selected, and issued an appointment letter dated March 30, 2006, assigning her to JIPMER, Pondicherry. Aggrieved by her posting and contending that other selected candidates were ineligible, she filed an Original Application before the Tribunal. On September 25, 2006, the Tribunal directed that her appointment offer not be cancelled. However, that order was vacated on January 25, 2007.
Subsequently, she filed a writ petition before the High Court. By order dated January 31, 2007, the Court found no merit in the petition but extended her joining time until February 21, 2007, noting her plea regarding her two small children. She was given liberty to seek further extension before the Tribunal. Pursuant to this liberty, she applied to the Tribunal, which extended the joining time until March 5, 2007. She joined JIPMER on March 1, 2007, within the extended time.
The Tribunal dismissed her application on May 25, 2007, holding that she had no vested right to be posted in Delhi and rejecting her objections to other respondents’ eligibility. Aggrieved, she filed the present writ petition. Appearing in person, she argued that having joined within extended time, her seniority should be calculated from the date of the offer of appointment. She relied on an Office Memorandum dated August 13, 2021, and Office Order dated October 30, 2019, asserting that other appointees had received similar retrospective seniority.
The Court appointed an Amicus Curiae, Ms. Saahila Kaur Lamba, who submitted that once extension was granted, the petitioner was entitled to notional seniority from the appointment date, citing Balwant Singh Narwal v. State of Haryana. The respondents opposed, submitting that the petitioner’s writ petition had been dismissed on merits, that extensions granted were interim in nature, and that since she did not join within the original stipulated period, she could not claim retrospective seniority. They relied on judgments including State of U.P. v. Prem Chopra, Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi.
The petitioner’s reliance on precedent and official memoranda was countered by respondents’ reliance on other judicial pronouncements. The Court considered these competing arguments in detail before reaching its determination.
The Court recorded: “In the present case, though the petitioner had not joined her posting within the period stipulated in the offer of appointment dated 30.03.2006, this Court extended the time for joining till 21.02.2007, and thereafter the learned Tribunal further extended it till 05.03.2007. The petitioner admittedly joined service within the said extended period.”
It was further observed: “Once the petitioner joins service within the extended period, whether such extension is granted by the respondents themselves or pursuant to orders of this Court, such joining has to be deemed as having been made within the period stipulated in the offer of appointment, and effect thereto has to follow.”
Referring to Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum dated June 6, 1978, the Bench noted: “if an extension of the joining period has been granted, the seniority of the person concerned is to be fixed under the rules applicable to the service/post in question, without any depression in seniority.”
Regarding the respondent’s argument that extensions were interim and merged into final dismissal, the Court stated: “The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the extension was granted only by way of interim orders and, without adjudicating upon the rights and contentions of the parties, and, therefore, should not come to the aid of the petitioner does not impress us. The fact remains that the order granting extension to the petitioner to join duty was never challenged by the respondents. The full effect of these orders, therefore, must be given, including for the purpose of determining the petitioner’s seniority.”
The Court further clarified: “While there can be no cavil with the proposition that backdated seniority cannot ordinarily be granted, in the present case seniority is being reckoned strictly in terms of the offer of appointment as modified by the orders of this Court and the learned Tribunal.”
On the issue of interim orders merging with final orders, the Court recorded: “Equally, though it is correct that interim orders passed during proceedings merge into the final order and ordinarily do not survive beyond it, in the present case the effect of the interim order was to condone the petitioner’s delay in joining duty within the time stipulated in the offer of appointment. Once such delay stands condoned, its legal effect must necessarily follow.”
The Bench concluded: “Accordingly, we allow the present petition to the limited extent by holding that the petitioner shall be entitled to seniority as per her merit in the selection process, with effect from the date stipulated in the offer of appointment. The consequential notional benefits shall also be extended to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders in this regard within a period of eight weeks from today.”
The Court also recorded its appreciation: “We express our gratitude to Ms.Saahila Kaur Lamba, the learned Amicus Curiae, for assisting us in the present case.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Dr. Punita K. Sodhi, Petitioner-in-person.
For the Respondents: Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC; Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Ms. Anum Hussain, Mr. Vedant Sood, Mr. Sourabh Kumar, Advocates; Ms. Saahila Kaur Lamba, Advocate (Amicus Curiae).
Case Title: Dr. Punita K. Sodhi v. UOI & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:7374-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 4218/2008 & CM Appl. 8126/2009
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Madhu Jain
