Ajay Badoni vs REVENUE on 4 November 2026

O R D E R

PER : AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Heard the parties at length.

2. The precise question that arises for our determination in the present Original Application- ―Whether the impugned final seniority list of Inspectors dated 03.07.2025, qua the ICT applicants and the direct recruit private respondents has been determined based on the relevant provision- sub para (ii) of Para 2 of CBEC‟S OM No. F. No. A 22015/23/2011-Ad.III.A, dated 27.10.2011, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt of Revenue in terms of par 3.5 of DoPT OM dated 03.07.1986, the transferee will be placed below all officers appointed regularly to that post/grade on the date of his/her appointment on transfer basis?”. UMA

UMA

THE PRAYER

3. Applicants are working as Inspectors, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Delhi Zone on Inter Commissionerate Transfer and have invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following relief(s) [as extracted from the OA] reads as- “(a) quash and set aside the impugned seniority list dated 03.07.2025 to the extent the applicants have been denied their proper placement in the list and have been placed below those candidates of CGLE 2014 batch who had joined after the applicants, consequently place the applicants at per their seniority keeping as per their date of joining; (b) quash and set aside the impugned promotion order to the extent of promotion of the private respondents and consequently promote the applicants;

(c) pass any other order or orders that may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.” FACTS IN BRIEF

4. The basic facts that would require notice are not in dispute that all the applicants initially appointed in the post of Inspector, in different commissionerate within the sanctioned strength of Inspectors for direct recruitment in the respective regions.

5. The Private Respondents –Direct Recruits CGLE-2014 Batch were selected in the grade of Inspector vide SSC result dated 02.09.2015 and the direct recruits started joining Delhi Zone from April, 2016 and the promotees of year 2016, promoted vide orders dated 01.04.2016. The direct recruits and promotees regularly appointed of Delhi Region in the post of Inspector started joining in Delhi Zone from April 2016.

UMA

UMA

6. Thereafter, the Inter-Commissionerate Transfer (in short ICT), order dated 03.08.2016, issued in case of the present applicants. The applicants requested and furnished undertaking to abide thereafter, transferred to Central Excise Customs and Service Tax, Delhi Zone, on their Inter- Commissionerate transfer and not in public interest.

7. The ICT considered in terms of CBEC’S O.M. dated 27.10.2011 and establishment order No 147/2016 dated 03.08.2016 was issued in case of the present applicants and the same specifically provides that the applicants are bound by all the terms and conditions laid down in O.M. dated 27.10.2011 and their undertaking given, to abide for determination of the seniority between transferees – ICT and officers appointed regularly to the post on the date of appointment. The sub-para (ii) of para 2 of O.M. dated 27.10.2011 in terms of Para 3.5 of DOPT O.M. dated 03.07.1986, provides that ICT-transferee officers will be placed below all officers appointed regularly to that post/grade on the date of their appointment on ICT-transfer basis in terms of Para 3.5(ii) of DOP&T, O.M. dated 03.07.1986.

8. The applicants, transferred on own request, on Inter- Commissionerate Transfer vide establishment order dated 03.08.2016 and being aggrieved by assigning of seniority in impugned final seniority list dated 03.07.2025 of Inspectors in Delhi Zone, qua the respondents, whereby direct recruits of CGLE-2014 Batch selected vide result dated 02.09.2015 and promotees of year 2016 have been placed above the applicants – transferee, whereas some of the applicants joined prior to already regularly appointed.

SUBMISSIONS

9. Shri. Arun Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Anil Kumar Sharma Advocate contended assailing the UMA

UMA

impugned final seniority list dated 03.07.2025, qua the applicants and private respondents. The regularly appointed DRs and Promotees assigned seniority prior to joining date of appointment and applicants ICT-transferees made junior to those regularly appointed Inspectors of Delhi Zone, who joined after some of the applicants. The contentions can be summarized as under—

(i) In the instant OA, all the DR, eleven applicants are Inspectors, initially joined respective parent region and on ICT joined at Delhi Zone in August, 2016 on various dates of the month of August pursuant to transfer order dt.3.8.2016. In the Delhi Zone, the DR-CGLE, 2014 Batch, several of them joined during year 2016-2017, and some of them have joined after joining of the applicants in the Delhi Zone. The applicants are aggrieved by seniority list dated 03.07.2025, wherein the applicants have been placed below the regularly appointed candidates of CGLE-2014 Batch who had joined after the applicants.

(ii) The applicants were borne in the cadre of Inspectors in parent region in year 2011 and private respondents direct recruits of CGLE-2014 in Delhi Zone entered in service on declaration of result on 2.9.2015 and commenced joining in April 2016 onwards. Some of the direct recruits joined much later to joining of present applicants and illegally granted retrospective seniority vide impugned seniority list.

(iii) The impugned seniority list is contrary to the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. Vs Ningam Siro & Ors., (2020) 5 SCC 689, as much as the said seniority list ignores the settled principle of service jurisprudence that no one can be accorded seniority from a date of being not borne in the cadre.

(iv) The issue of principle of seniority in respect of private respondents – CGLE-2014 batch and the ICTs have already attained finality in O.A. No. 2953/2019, Amit Kumar Vs. UMA

UMA

Union of India, upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and SLP has been dismissed.

10. Shri Rajiv Kumar, learned Senior Central Government Counsel for official respondents, strenuously supported the impugned seniority list dated 03.07.2025, casted in accordance with CBEC’S letter dated 27.10.2011 and relevant rules for assigning seniority to ICT-transferees. The applicants, rightly assigned bottom seniority on ICT, below all the regularly appointed direct recruit-and promotees Inspectors in Delhi Zone prior to date of transfer.

(i) The impugned seniority list dated 03.07.2025 qua the regularly, appointed Inspectors vide selection result dated 02.09.2015, in their parent Delhi Zone as per merit position being borne in the cadre and assigned prior to date 03.08.2016 of appointment of applicants — on ICT transferee, is in accordance with terms and conditions of ICT-Order dated 03.08.2016 and undertakings furnished by all the applicants.

(ii) The impugned seniority list dated 03.07.2025 qua the ICT- Transferee, the applicants accepting terms and conditions in CBEC’S O.M. dated 27.10.2011 and seniority assigned on undertaking in accordance with settled legal position in case of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra), the seniority has been fixed under relevant rules for determination of seniority on own request-ICT in accordance with para 3.5 of O.M. dated 03.07.1986 read with sub-para (ii) of para 2 CBEC’S O.M. dated 27.10.2011, that ICT-Transferee will be placed below all officers appointed regularly to that post on date of appointment on transfer in terms of Para 3.5 of DOPT, O.M. dated 03.07.1986.

(iii) There is no legal infirmity in the impugned seniority list dated 03.07.2025 of Inspectors, CGST Delhi Zone and consequential orders are in accordance of law.

(iv) The applicants are ICT transferee pursuant to order dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure A-2) and as per terms & condition No. UMA

UMA

2 (ii) of circular dated 27.10.2011 issued by CBEC’S OM No. F No. A22015/23/2011-Ad.III-A, the applicants are to be placed below all officers appointed regularly to the post of Inspector on date of their appointment on ICT-Transfer-on own request and as per undertakings to abide by terms of circular dated 27.10.2011 and ICT order dated 03.08.2016.

(v) The Direct Recruit CGLE-2014 Batch selected vide SSC result dated 02.09.2015, their seniority is determined on their merit position in select list and started joining Delhi Zone from April, 2016 much before ICT order dated 03.08.2016 of the applicants. Accordingly, the relative seniority of DR-2014, and Departmental Promotee 2016 and ICT transferee-the applicants of 2016 have been rightly placed in seniority list dated 03.07.2025, below all the Inspectors appointed regularly on the date of ICT/appointment on transfer i.e. 03.08.2016 and no interference is warranted. ANALYSIS AND REASONS

11. We have bestowed our anxious considerations on the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record as well as considered the precedents relied.

12. Admitted facts in the case are that all the applicants were directly recruited in the sanctioned strength of Inspector cadre in the various Regional Commissionerate in year 2011. The applicants furnished undertaking; accepting terms and conditions of O.M. dated 27.10.2011 issued by CBEC’ forgiving earlier seniority. The fact of the matter that the direct recruit/private respondents of CGLE-2014 Batch were selected vide SSC result dated 02.09.2015 and started joining Delhi Zone, parent zone as per merit list from April, 2016 and the promotees — Inspectors in the Delhi Zone, their parent zone also promoted vide order dated 01.04.2016. UMA

UMA

13. The applicants request for Inter-Commissionerate Transfer, accepted vide establishment order dated 03.08.2016 on terms and conditions governing of CBEC’s O.M. dated 27.10.2011 read with Para 3.5 of DOPT, O.M. dated 03.07.1986 for fixation of seniority of these transferee will be placed below all the officers appointed regularly to that post/grade on date of his/her appointment on transfer basis in terms of Para 3.5 of DOPT O.M. dated 03.07.1986.

14. The private respondents are direct recruits in grade of Inspector, Delhi-Zone, selected on 2.9.2015 to be assigned seniority as per Merit List/Select list dt.2.9.2015 irrespective of date of joining, the seniority is to be assigned. Admittedly, the rule of assigning seniority to private respondents is not challenged in the OA. It is also not in dispute that all the applicants have been assigned seniority as per terms and conditions provided in the ICT-order dt.3.8.2016. RULE OF LAW

15. To appreciate the issue in the present case, it will be necessary to notice the relevant provision for determination of seniority — on ICT transfer from jurisdiction of one Cadre Controlling Authority to another CCA. The relevant paras of O.M. dated 27.10.2011, F. No. A. 22015/23/2011-Ad.III(A), Govt of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs, reproduced for ready reference- UMA

UMA

“F. No. A. 22015/23/2011-Ad.III.A Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise & Customs Room No. 502, Hudco Vishala Building, Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066 dated the 27th Oct., 2011. To All the Chief Commissioners/Directors General under CBEC All the Commissioners-in-charge of Directorates under CBEC Subject : Lifting of ban on Inter Commissionerate Transfer in respect of willing officers in Group 'B', 'C' & 'D' posts under the CBEC - regarding Sir/Madam, I am directed to refer to the Board‟s letter F. No.A 22015/3/2004-Ad.III.A dated 19.2.2004, vide which the Inter-Commissionerate Transfer (ICT) in request of Groups „B‟, „C‟ and „D‟ employees were banned. Subsequently the ban was relaxed in phases on spuse ground, compassionate appointment ground and physically handicapped employees vide Board‟s letters F.No.A.22015/19/2006-Ad.III.A dated 27.03.2009, F.No.A.22015/11/2008- Ad.III.A dated 29.07.2009 and F. No.A.22015/15/2010-Ad.III.A dated 09.02.2011 respectively. Such relaxation was allowed without loss of seniority and subject to specific conditions mentioned in the above instructions. This was done in facilitate posting of husband and wife as the same station and permitting ICT in respect of employees appointed on compassionate ground basis and for physically handicapped employees without loss of seniority.

2. On consideration of all aspects in the matter of ICT, it has been decided by the Board now to lift the ban on ICT with immediate effect. Accordingly, any willing Group 'B', 'C' employee and the erstwhile Group 'D' employee may apply for transfer from the jurisdiction of one Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA) to another CCA subject to availability of vacancy and on the following terms & conditions:

(i) The concerned two Cadre Controlling Authorities should agree to the transfer.

(ii) The transferee will be placed below all officers appointed regularly to that post/grade on the date of his/her appointment on transfer basis in terms of Para 3.5 of DOP&T's O.M. dated 03.07.1986. In other words, such a transferee will be junior to those regularly appointed officers prior to his/her transfer. However, such transferred officer will retain his/her eligibility of the parent Commissionerate for his/her promotion to the next higher grade, etc.

(iii) On transfer he/she will not be considered for promotion in the old commissionerate.

(iv) He/she will not be entitled to any joining time and transfer travelling allowance;

(v) Under no circumstances, request for ICT should be entertained till the officer appointed in a particular Commissionerate/post completes the prescribed probation period.

(vi) The seniority of the officers who were allowed ICT earlier by the various Cadre Controlling Authorities on the basis of Board’s letters F.No.A.22015/19/2006.Ad.III.A dated 27.03.2009, F. No.A.22015/11/2008-Ad.III.A dated 29.07.2009 and F.No.A.22015/15/2010-Ad.III.A dated 09.02.2011 shall be fixed as per the present instructions.

(vii) Officers who are presently working on deputation basis from their parent Commissionerate to any othe rCommissionerate/Directorate first and apply afresh for ICT. The officers who have been continuously on deputation and have been absorbed on ICT during the interim period from 19.02.2004 (i.e. the UMA

UMA

date from which the ban became effective) till date, their seniority will be fixed from the date of their joining on deputation in the transferred Zone/Commissionerate.

(viii) A written undertaking (in the enclosed format) to abide by the requisite terms and conditions will be obtained from the officers before the transfers are actually effected.

(ix) All pending Court cases where seniority protection/ICT has been challenged may be handled appropriately in terms of these instructions and necessary compliance furnished to the Board in due course.

3. The above instructions may be brought to the notice of all concerned authorities for compliance.” [Emphasis Supplied]

16. Undisputedly, all the applicants were borne in the different commissionerate in the grade of Inspector and the initial appointment was made region wise. The cadre of Inspector of the applicant assigned region wise as per merit and cadre controlling authority is also region wise. The OM dated 27.10.2011, as extracted hereinabove, permitted on own request, willingness of the applicants for inter- commissionerate transfer from jurisdiction of one cadre controlling authority to another CCA subject to terms and conditions.

17. As evident from O.M. dated 27.10.2011 issued by CBEC’s, the terms and conditions on Inter-Commissionerate transfer on willingness of officers, the sub-para (ii) of Para 2 of O.M. dated 27.10.2011 specifically lays down the rule for determination of seniority of the ICT-transferee, the applicants on transfer from parent CCA/regions to borrowing CCA/regions – Delhi Region/Zone, on own requests.

18. The sub-para (ii) of Para 2 of O.M. dated 27.10.2011 is the specific rule for determining of the inter-se-seniority of applicants – ICT transferee vide the establishment order No. 147/2016 dated 03.08.2016, appointed on transfer basis in Delhi Zone. The sub-para (ii) of Para 2 is based on terms provided in Para 3.5 of D.O.P.T. O.M. dated 03.07.1986 under UMA

UMA

which transferees on ICT shall be junior to those regularly appointed officers prior to his/her transfer.

19. The Para 3.5 of DOP&T’s O.M. dated 03.07.1986 reads as— “3.5. In cases in which transfers are not strictly in public interest, the transferred officers will be placed below all officers appointed regularly to the post on the date of absorption.” (Emphasis Supplied)

20. The fact of the matter, in the case in hand, is that on willingness for transfer of the applicants, working in grade of Inspector in different parent CCA transferred to the borrowing recipient CCA/Delhi Zone. Applicants accepted on written undertaking to abide by terms and conditions of O.M. dated 27.10.2011. On specific terms and conditions and willingness of applicants accepted for ICT and transfer of the applicants in their case was not in administrative exigency or in public interest.

21. Applicants were transferred on own request with specific terms and conditions vide Establishment Order No. 147/2016 dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure A-2). For ready reference the relevant pars 2 & 3 of appointment order dated 03.08.2016 of the applicants to Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Delhi Zone reads as- “2. The above Inter-Commissionerate Transfer will be effected from the date when the above officers report for duty in Central Excise, Delhi Zone and abide by all the terms and conditions as laid down in CBEC’s, New Delhi letter dated 27.10.2011 as quoted above, such as: The transferee officers will be placed below all officers appointed regularly to that post/grade on the date of his/her appointment on transfer basis in terms of para 3.5 of DOP&T’s O.M dated 03.07.1986 and other related instructions. In other words, such a transferee will be junior to those regularly appointed officers prior to his/her transfer.

3. The above officers should report to the undersigned immediately after getting relieved from his/her Parent Commissionerate along with Bio-data, caste certificate (if UMA

UMA

applicable) and undertaking duly attested by respective Controlling Authorities (in original), but in no case later than 02.09.2016 failing which the order will be deemed to have been cancelled, ab initio, with reference to such officers, without any further intimation to him/her.” (Emphasis Supplied)

22. As can be seen from the above rules for determination of seniority of ICT-Transferee in case of the present applicants, is governed by specific provision i.e. sub-para (ii) of Para 2 of CBEC’s O.M. dated 27.10.2011 and Para 3.5 of DOPT’s O.M. dated 03.07.1986. The applicants have been absorbed in the recipient-Delhi Zone of Central Excise & Customs on own willingness in accordance with the terms of CBEC’s O.M. dated 27.10.2011 and DOPT O.M. dated 03.07.1986 including terms of fixation of their seniority i.e. the applicants – ICT-transferee appointed on absorption in Delhi Zone on own request vide order dated 03.08.2016, and all the other Inspectors - private respondents of parent Delhi Zone have been selected prior to these applicants as DR vide SSC result dated 02.09.2015 on direct recruitment basis placed as per merit position, the criteria for assigning seniority in parent Delhi Zone and direct recruitee of CGLE-2014 Batch joining in year 2016 and departmental promotees, promoted vide order dated 01.04.2016, prior to appointment order dated 03.08.2016 of the applicants. Hence the applicants in the OA were rightly placed below already regularly appointed Inspectors in Delhi Zone as per the provisions of the CBEC O.M. dated 27.10.2011. We find no legal infirmity in the impugned seniority list dated 03.07.2025 qua the applicants and consequential promotion order, deserves to be upheld.

23. Respondents have drawn up impugned final seniority list dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure A-1) and placed correctly the direct recruits recruited through CGLE-2014, vide SSC result dated 02.09.2015 started joining in year 2016 prior to the applicants issuance of appointment in Delhi Zone i.e. UMA

UMA

03.08.2016 by absorption. The promotee vide order dated 01.04.2016 in the post of Inspector, parent Delhi Zone – the impugned seniority list dated 03.07.2025 has rightly placed the applicants at serial no. 901 to 912, are of ICT-2016 vide E.O. dated 03.08.2016 en bloc at bottom after placing the regularly appointed direct recruits – 2014 batch vide SSC result dated 02.09.2015 and promotees of year 2016 and considering bunching them, in accordance with rules of determination of seniority on ICT-appointment by way of absorption i.e. CBEC O.M. dated 27.10.2011 read with DOPT O.M. dated 03.07.1986 and terms and conditions No. 2 for seniority in Establishment Order dated 03.08.2016 of absorption in new Delhi Zone on ICT transfer. The present OA lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

24. As evident from the rules for determination of seniority as extracted from sub-para (ii) of Para 2 of CBEC, O.M. dated 27.10.2011 and Para 3.5 of DOPT, O.M. dated 03.07.1986, there is no provision to assign seniority to ICT transferee over and above those regularly appointed i.e. 02.09.2015 to 01.04.2016 to the post of Inspector prior to the date of appointment on ICT transfer i.e. 03.08.2016 of applicants in the OA. The direct recruits – 2014 batch selected on 02.09.2015 and promotees of 2016 started joining much before the present ICT-transferee-applicants. The impugned final seniority list dated 03.07.2025, qua the applicants and respondents is in consonance with specific rules for determination of seniority of Grade Inspector in the peculiar facts and circumstances and the OA is liable to be dismissed.

25. Learned senior counsel for the applicants much emphasized that respondents have justified placement of present applicants below the direct recruits of CGLE-2014 on the ground that direct recruits of CGLE-2014 selected vide SSC result dated 02.09.2015 and commenced joining from UMA

UMA

April 2016 onwards, whereas the seniority cannot be predicted upon date of result of selection or completion of selection process, it has to be determined based on the date of actual appointment and assumption of charge.

26. We have considered the submissions of learned senior counsel for the applicants. The undisputed fact in the case is that direct recruit-CGLE-2014, selected vide result dated 02.09.2015 for parent Delhi Zone and seniority is to be based on inter-se-merit wise in result dated 02.09.2015 irrespective of date of joining. The SSC commenced recruitment from the date of issuance of advertisement in CGLE-2014 and completed selection process on declaration of result on 02.09.2015 for the grade of Inspectors in Delhi Zone, borne in the cadre and candidates started joining in from April 2016, prior to issuance of E.O. dated 03.08.2016 of the applicants, whereby applicants absorbed in recipient Delhi Zone on bottom seniority to already regularly appointed Inspectors in Delhi Zone.

27. Government of India, O.M. No. 28011/6/76-Estt(D) dated 24.6.1978 on the subject-provides that starting point for purpose of seniority. The date of completion of selection process for seniority in case of direct recruitment through examination by UPSC, other than UPSC examination, is date of publication of result and for promotion – last date of DPC meeting.

28. In view of para 2 of above O.M. dated 24.6.1978 by Govt. of India, starting point in recruitment roster for purpose of seniority and in the case in hand, direct recruits selection result declared on 02.09.2015 and batch started joining in April 2016 prior to the applicants – ICT-transferee absorbed vide E.O. dated 03.08.2016 and assigned seniority below regularly appointees i.e. DR vide SSC result dated 02.09.2015 in accordance with O.M. dated 27.10.2011 read with O.M. UMA

UMA

dated 03.07.1986 of DOPT and O.M. dated 24.06.1978. There is no legal infirmity in casting the impugned seniority list dated 03.07.2025 of applicants and private respondents-direct recuit of CGLE-2014, selected vide SSC result dated 02.09.2015 and the present OA sans merits and deserves to be dismissed.

29. Shri Arun Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel for the applicants placed heavy reliance on order dated 13.10.2020 in case of Amit Kumar & Ors Vs. Union of India (supra) passed by this Bench and upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and SLP also stands dismissed.

30. But it is settled position of law that judgment has got no universal application rather the judgment is to be tested on the basis of fact of each case. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy versus State of Tamil Nadu and others, (2014) 5 SCC 75. The relevant paragraph 47 which reads as under- “47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. “The Court should not-place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact Situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.” [Emphasis supplied]

31. We are now proceeding to examine the factual aspects as was in the case of Amit Kumar (supra) and challenged in W.P (C) 3576/2021, Yash Rattan Vs. UoI and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in and SLP dismissed vide order dated 12.07.2022. The facts in the case of Amit Kumar (supra), that all the ICT-applicants were allotted inter-commissionerate /zone other than Delhi and on ICT transferred in year 2014 on various dates and they were counted and placed at the bottom of seniority list in Delhi Zone on own request transfer and prior to date of ICT-order, no one regularly appointed or selected in the grade of Inspector by SSC. Thereafter SSC UMA

UMA

notified vacancies on 19.05.2015 and after selection, the private respondents were allotted Delhi Zone and joined on various dates in year 2016. The direct recruits Inspectors were selected after two years of transfer of the applicants on ICT. The case of applicants in Amit Kumar (supra) they joined before result of CGLE selection year 2014 was not declared and prior to selection of direct recruits private respondents and seniority be assigned from date of joining.

32. In such peculiar facts and circumstances, this Tribunal in Amit Kumar (supra) held that direct recruits Inspectors selected and appointed in year 2016 cannot be placed above the applicants – ICT-transferees in Delhi Zone also joined in year 2014 and CGLE-2014 batch not borne.

33. But here in the case in our hand, we have analyzed in detail the issue – whether the impugned final seniority list dated 03.07.2025 qua the ICT- applicants and direct recruits selected vide SSC result dated 02.09.2015, batch started joining in April 2016 and seniority of batch is based on selection list – result dated 02.09.2015 merit-wise position instead of date of joining in present Delhi Zone. The sub-para

(ii) of Para 2 of CBEC’s, O.M. dated 27.10.2011 read with Para 3.5 of DOPT, O.M. dated 03.07.1986 and O.M. dated 24.6.1978 provides rule for determination of seniority on ICT- transferee – transferee will be placed below all officers appointed regularly to that post on the date of his/her appointment on transfer basis.

34. Undisputedly, in the case in hand the direct recruits in post of Inspector from CGLE-2014 Batch vide SSC result dated 02.09.2015 selected borne in the cadre and started joining in April 2016, much prior to ICT transfer order dated 03.08.2016 of these applicants in the OA in our hand. In our considered opinion the order dated 13.10.2020 in case of Amit Kumar (supra), upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, with greatest UMA

UMA

respect will not be applicable in the case in our hand, as there is material difference in the facts of the two cases. The order dated 13.10.2020 in case of Amit Kumar (supra) is distinguishable on the facts and has no applicability to the peculiar facts and provision for determination of seniority of the case in our hand.

35. The selection of Direct Recruits,-CGLE-2014 batch, selection completed on 02.09.2015 of private respondents in the post of Inspector Delhi Zone was based on merit, the rank in merit list would determine the seniority of the batch mates. The foundation of direct recruits in parent zone - Delhi of Direct recruit for seniority being merit in select list and ICT- applicants forgiving the seniority on own request –ICT have to be placed bottom of all the regularly appointed Inspectors in Delhi Zone prior to date 03.08.2016 ICT order of the applicants.

36. Now so far as decisions relied on behalf of the applicants, referred hereinabove, shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In case of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) the issue under consideration was that whether while deciding the inter-se-seniority between promotees and direct recruits, seniority to direct recruits can be granted from the date on which the vacancy arose/date of initiation of recruitment. In the present case the direct recruits regularly appointed prior to applicants' ICT order dated 03.08.2016 and seniority assigned as per OM dated 27.10.2011 and OM dated 03.07.1986 and said OMs are not under challenge. The OA is devoid of merits and no interference is called for.

37. In case of Ashok Kumar Gupta versus State of U.P. reported in (1997) 5 SCC 201. Their Lordships held that seniority is governed by the existing rules and is required to be worked out accordingly. The Rule merely affecting the chances of promotion cannot be regarded as varying the conditions of UMA

UMA

service. Chances of promotion are not conditions of service. A Rule which merely affects the chances of promotion does not amount to change in the conditions of service.

38. In A. K. Bhatnagar Versus Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 544 relied in Dhole Govind Saheb Rao Vs. UOI, (2015) 4 SCALE 259. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that seniority is an incidence of service and where the service rules prescribe the method of its computation it is squarely governed by such rules.

39. What comes out loud and clear from the above that the applicants in the present case were transferred on own request vide ICT-Transfer order dated 03.08.2016 and prior to transfer order dated 03.08.2016 of the applicants to Delhi Zone, the direct recruit-private respondents of CGLE-2014 batch vide SSC result dated 02.09.2015 started joining from April 2016 and Delhi Zone being their parent zone seniority in the selection dated 02.09.2015 in batch is to be assigned based on initial merit list irrespective of date of joining in Zone. The direct recruits selected vide SSC result dated 02.09.2015 and promotees vide order dated 01.04.2016 have been regularly appointed prior to the present applicants absorption on ICT i.e. 03.08.2016, joining on various dates in August 2016. Hence rightly placed below direct recruits selected on 02.09.2015 on regular basis prior to appointment and absorption dated 03.08.2016 of the ICT-transferees in accordance with rules of determination of seniority i.e. O.M. dated 27.10.2011 and DOPT O.M. dated 03.07.1986 and O.M. dated 24.06.1978.

CONCLUSION

40. We have already analysed the legal issue in light of aforesaid analysis. The impugned final seniority list dated 03.07.2025 qua the applicants and private respondents is upheld as same has been determined based on existing UMA

UMA

provision for seniority envisaged in sub-para (ii) of Para 2 of CBEC’S O.M. No. F. No. A.22015/23/2011-Ad.III dated 27.10.2011 and in terms of Para 3.5 of DOPT, O.M. dated 03.07.1986 and there is no legal infirmity in determination of seniority of transferee-applicants.

41. Accordingly, the issue is decided in favour of respondents and against the applicants. The applicants are not entitled for the reliefs sought.

42. Consequently, the original application is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

43. There shall be no order as to costs.

44. As a sequel thereof, pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

45. Registry is directed to upload the order on website forthwith.

(Ajay Pratap Singh) (Sanjeeva Kumar) Member (J)

Member (A)

/abhay/ UMA

UMA