“‘Inherently Contradictory and Unsustainable’: Delhi High Court Quashes Tribunal’s Order Protecting Promotions Despite Revised Seniority List Issued Under ‘Binding Judicial Mandate’”
Isabella Mariam
The Delhi High Court, in a judgment delivered on March 17, 2025, by the Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul, set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had protected the promotions of certain officers despite a revised seniority list issued in compliance with binding judicial directions. The Court recorded that the Tribunal’s directive was “contradictory” and could not be sustained in light of earlier judgments by both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
The Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Union of India, setting aside the Tribunal’s order that had directed the Union to maintain the promotions of five applicants to the post of Chemical Examiner-I (CE-I), despite the revision of the seniority list affecting their earlier promotions. The Bench held that such promotions, based on a now-superseded seniority list, could not continue when the list itself had been revised under binding judicial orders. The Court stated, “The Tribunal could not simultaneously have upheld the revised Seniority List dated 19 December 2017, as well as the promotions of Mukta Srivastava etc. from CE-II to CE-I based on the earlier Seniority List dated 29 January 2014.”
The Court further directed that OA 1645/2018, filed before the Tribunal by the affected officers, shall stand dismissed.
The Union of India approached the High Court against the Tribunal’s order dated 20 February 2020 in OA 1645/2018 and a subsequent review dismissal on 17 November 2020. The Tribunal had partly allowed the officers’ application by restraining the Union from disturbing their promotions to CE-I, which were granted in 2015 based on a seniority list dated 29 January 2014. The revised seniority list dated 19 December 2017, however, altered their seniority positions downward and threatened their previously granted promotions.
The respondents, including Mukta Srivastava, approached the Tribunal after the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) circulated the revised seniority list and proposed to conduct a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceeding. The applicants argued that the CBEC had no justifiable cause to revisit their seniority or promotions, which were made on the basis of the original seniority list.
The Union of India submitted that the revised seniority list was issued in compliance with the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Bhuwan Ram v. Union of India, which directed the recalculation of seniority based on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Union of India v. N.R. Parmar (2012). The Union argued that any challenge to the revised seniority list would undermine compliance with the Bhuwan Ram decision.
Ajay Kumar Singh and others, private respondents before the Tribunal and parties to the High Court proceedings, further argued that the Bhuwan Ram judgment had been carried to the Supreme Court and was affirmed on merits by dismissal of the special leave petition (SLP) in Sahdev Kumar v. Union of India.
The Tribunal, however, while acknowledging the binding nature of the revised seniority list, directed that the promotions of Mukta Srivastava and others to CE-I should remain undisturbed.
The High Court critically examined the Tribunal’s reasoning and held that it could not be sustained. The Bench observed that the Tribunal had accepted the validity of the revised seniority list, which was framed in accordance with the Bhuwan Ram judgment and the earlier Parmar decision. However, the Tribunal, at the same time, directed that promotions based on the superseded seniority list should remain intact.
The Court noted, “The Tribunal acknowledges that Meghachandra did not permit interference with the revised Seniority List dated 19 December 2017, as it had been issued on the basis of Parmar, prior to the rendition of decision in Meghachandra.”
The Bench recorded that this dual stance resulted in a contradiction. It stated, “The Tribunal could not have, therefore, upheld the revision of the Seniority List of 29 January 2014 by the Seniority List dated 19 December 2017 and, at the same time, directed that the promotions of Mukta Srivastava etc. as CE-I, which had taken place on the basis of the superseded Seniority List of 29 January 2014, would remain undisturbed.”
The Court further noted that the Tribunal appeared to have been influenced by equitable considerations, observing, “The impugned decision, apparently, has been passed by the Tribunal more on considerations of equity than of law.”
The High Court clarified that the promotions at issue were necessarily subject to the revised seniority list that had been issued under judicial directive. It recorded, “The necessity of reworking the seniority, in compliance with the directions contained in the said judgment, also resulted in the necessity of revising promotions made on the basis of the earlier seniority.”
On the applicability of the Supreme Court’s later judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro (2020), the Court found that the facts of this case did not attract the protective clause in Meghachandra, which shielded finalized seniority positions under Parmar. The Court distinguished the facts from those in Yash Rattan v. Union of India, holding that, “By no stretch of imagination can it, therefore, be said that the seniority position had not been decided prior to the rendition of the judgment in Meghachandra.”
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal’s order. The Bench concluded, “The impugned decision of the Tribunal, which directs status quo to be maintained with respect to the promotions of Mukta Srivastava etc., from CE-II to CE-I, and injuncts the UOI from revisiting the said promotions, cannot, therefore, sustain.”
The Court further directed, “OA 1645/2018 shall stand dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners (Union of India & Ors.): Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. A.S. Singh, Mr. Amit Sinha, and Ms. Shriya Sharma
For Respondents 1 to 5: Mr. Anil Singal
For Respondents 9 and 10: Mr. Akarsh Sharma
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Mukta Srivastava & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:1693
Case Number: W.P.(C) 3303/2021
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Ajay Digpaul
[Read/Download order]
