SUNIL & ORS. versus HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS. ETC on 28 April 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment(s)and order(s)passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhiin Writ Petition (C) Nos. 949 of 2019, 7893 of 2019 and10668 of 2022,the original respondents have preferred the present appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:- 2.1 Applications were invited by the High Court of Delhi in theyear 2016 to fill up 27 vacant posts of private secretaries. Writtenexamination was held on 04.07.2016, in which 135 candidates appeared.Skill and typing test were held on 05.07.2016 and the result of the writtenexamination was declared on 22.12.2016. Before the declaration of thefinal merit list, three candidates filed representations seeking recheckingof their answer sheets. The Selection Committee rejected therepresentations observing that there was no provision for rechecking/re-evaluation of the answer sheets in the Delhi High Court (Appointmentand Condition of Service) Rules, 1972. The interviews of the successfulcandidates were held on 19.01.2017/25.01.2017.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A2.2 One Garima Madan obtained copy of her answer sheet andmade a representation dated 27.01.2017 requesting the CompetentAuthority to re-evaluate/re-check certain answers and grant her anopportunity to appear in the interview. Meanwhile, the final merit listpursuant to the written examination and interviews was published anduploaded on the internet on 30.01.2017. Notification was issued by theBHigh Court notifying the appointments made to the post of privatesecretaries appointing 27 candidates including the original writ petitionersbefore the High Court. The respondent – Dinesh Kumar was alsoprovided with a copy of his answer sheet pursuant to his application.

2.3 After the declaration of the merit list, few candidates, whoChad obtained copies of their answer sheets, namely, Ms. Garima Madan;Ms. Sapna Sethi, Mr. Sumit Ghai and Ms. Shitu Nagpal filedrepresentations in the month of February, 2017, seeking re-evaluation oftheir answer sheets.

2.4 The Writ Petition (C) No. 4260 of 2017 was filed before theDHigh Court by the candidates seeking re-evaluation. By order dated17.05.2017, the Delhi High Court directed the Acting Chief Justice ofthe High Court to take an independent decision of reappraisal with respectto the evaluation/marks. A Special Committee was constituted by theActing Chief Justice on 23.05.2017 to decide the issue pertaining to theEevaluation of certain questions in respect of the examination. While theseproceedings were ongoing, further representations were filed bycandidates for re-evaluation. Total of 13 candidates submitted therepresentations for re-evaluation. At this stage, it is required to be notedthat out of 13 candidates, 05 candidates have already been appointedvide notification dated 02.02.2017 and the remaining 08 as such wereFnot appointed.

2.5 A meeting of the Special Committee was convened on12.07.2017 and it was decided that an independent examiner would beappointed to carry out re-evaluation which will be limited to 13 candidatesas the other candidates have accepted the marks awarded to them. TheGHigh Court disposed of the pending writ petitions as the SpecialCommittee recommended re-evaluation of answer sheets. That pursuantto the re-evaluation of the 13 candidates, the marks of all the 13candidates came to be increased. The High Court disposed of the writpetitions noting that re-evaluation of the answer sheets has been H

concluded and it was observed that it would be appropriate for the SpecialCommittee to consider the report of the re-evaluation and recommendthe further course of action and, thereafter, the result be notified.

2.6 The Special Committee on 12.09.2017 directed copy of re-evaluation results be given to the 13 candidates as also to the alreadyappointed 27 private secretaries. It was further directed that the samebe uploaded on the intranet and also displayed on the notice board.

2.7 That thereafter one Saphalta Bhati filed the Writ Petition (C)No. 8255 of 2017 before the High Court praying for re-evaluation, whichcame to be dismissed by the High Court by order dated 15.09.2017 onthe grounds of delay and laches. The review application also came to bedismissed vide order dated 27.10.2017. That thereafter on 01.03.2018,the Acting Chief Justice took a decision that those candidates, whosemarks have been increased and their marks are found to be higher thanthe candidates already appointed, they may be appointed against thevacant 22 vacancies of private secretaries without disturbing those 27candidates already appointed. At this stage, it is required to be noted thatin the administrative note dated 01.03.2018, it was observed by the ActingChief Justice that because of limited re-evaluation of only 13 candidates,that too, to limited questions, an unfortunate situation has resulted.However, if re-evaluation of all papers is now undertaken, it would resultin unwarranted delay and the appointments having been effected oneyear ago, it is difficult to set the clock back. Therefore, the Acting ChiefJustice took a decision that 08 candidates whose marks have beenincreased on re-evaluation and are found to be having more marks thanthe candidates already appointed, they may be appointed against 22vacancies vacant as those 08 candidates would stand qualified upon re-evaluation. The Acting Chief Justice also observed that the issue whichrequires consideration is as to how to fix the seniority and, therefore, thematter was referred to the Special Committee on the aspect of fixationof seniority.

2.8 The Special Committee in its meeting held on 07.03.2018recommended that the 05 already selected candidates whose paperswere re-evaluated, would now still be entitled to grant of benefit ofseniority vis-à-vis the other private secretaries and with those who werenewly selected would be at the bottom of the seniority (in case of 06newly selected). That the re-evaluated result was declared and uploadedon the internet as also displayed on the notice board on 12.03.2018.

AB

C

D

E

F

GH

AThereafter, a notification dated 14.03.2018 recommending appointmentof 06 newly selected candidates came to be issued w.e.f. 12.03.2018.

2.9 That thereafter the respondent – original writ petitioner - DineshKumar moved a representation seeking re-evaluation on 25.05.2018,i.e., after a period of 15 months from the date of obtaining the copy ofBanswer sheet on 20.02.2017. Other similar writ petitions were also filedbelatedly. That thereafter the appellants herein – the candidates, whowere dissatisfied by the denial of seniority as per the increased marks,filed representations on 16.07.2018 with a request that their seniority beconsidered as per the revised marks and they may be put in the senioritylist / select list on appropriate places. That all the representations wereCplaced before the Special Committee on 20.07.2018. The SpecialCommittee rejected the representation of the respondent – Dinesh Kumarstating that relief of re-evaluation cannot be granted at a belated stageand in light of order in the case of Saphalta Bhati (supra). However,thereafter on the representations made by the appellants and the otherDcandidates, who were dissatisfied by the denial of seniority as per theincreased marks, in the meeting dated 01.10.2018, the Special Committeedecided to accord notional seniority in accordance with revised marks tothe candidates. Accordingly, the revised merit list was drawn up anduploaded on the intranet on 23.10.2018. A final notification declaring theseniority in terms of marks obtained by each candidate was uploaded onE15.01.2019.

2.10 Subsequently, in the meantime, one Ms. Sapna Sethi filed aWrit Petition (C) No. 2863 of 2018 before the High Court directing thather case be considered by the Special Committee. In the meeting heldon 21.02.2019, the Special Committee considered the case of Ms. SapnaFSethi, who was previously an unsuccessful candidate, and awarded her3.5 extra marks. That thereafter, the respondent herein – the originalwrit petitioner – Dinesh Kumar aggrieved by the issuance of the revisedmerit list filed the Writ Petition (C) No. 949 of 2019 before the HighCourt. In the writ petition, he also prayed for re-evaluation of the answers.

G

2.11 A batch of 21 candidates (respondents herein), who werealready appointed earlier filed Writ Petition (C) No. 7893 of 2019 interalia on the ground that their rank has been affected as a result of themerit list dated 23.10.2018. That a further revised list was again issuedby the High Court on 17.12.2021 after incorporating the name of Ms.

H

Sapna Sethi. Respondent – Dinesh Kumar also filed Writ Petition (C)No. 10668 of 2022 aggrieved by the revised merit list of 17.12.2021.

2.12 By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Courthas allowed the aforesaid writ petitions and has set aside the merit listsdated 23.10.2018 and 17.12.2021 and directed that the seniority ofcandidates mentioned in Final merit list issued on 30.01.2017 and thosewho were granted the benefit of re-evaluation would be considered asappointed on 30.01.2017, however, their seniority and position shall bereckoned after last appointed candidate. Hence the present appeals.

3. Shri C.U. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalfof the appellants in C.A. Nos. 2883-85/2023 has submitted that therespective appellants were earlier not in the select list due to incorrectmarking. It is submitted that thereafter on re-evaluation they securedmore marks than the last selected candidate and therefore, they werenot only entitled to the appointment but also to be ranked in accordancewith the revised marks in the merit list which determines their seniorityfor future promotions.

3.1 It is submitted that on merit list being revised due to change inthe marking on re-evaluation, earlier the Special Committee rightly tooka decision to give the seniority to the appellants as per the marks obtained.It is submitted that the same has now been un-done by the High Courtand the appellants have been directed to be placed at the bottom of theseniority list despite the fact that their appointments w.e.f. 30.01.2017i.e., the date of publication of first merit list has been upheld.

3.2 It is submitted that despite being aware of the flawed markingand the fact that the High Court was considering the issue of re-evaluationbased on the representations and writ petitions filed by 13 candidates,respondents made no attempt till November, 2018 to seek re-evaluation.It is a submitted that respondents were well aware that a direction waspassed by the High Court of Delhi in its order dated 20.07.2017 that there-evaluation would be confined to the grievance articulated by 13candidates. It is submitted that the re-evaluation was closed vide orderdated 30.08.2017, the respondents consciously opted to not initiate anyaction either to challenge the orders or to seek re-evaluation, despitehaving knowledge as the said exercise being undertaken and the resultsthereof were furnished to them on 12.09.2017. It is submitted that 5 outof initially selected 27 candidates were prompt in seeking re-evaluation,unlike the remaining 22 already selected candidates.

AB

CD

E

F

GH

A3.3 It is submitted that furthermore, in the case of Saphalta Bhati(supra) the High Court denied the re-evaluation on the grounds of delayand laches which attained the finality. It is submitted that respondentswere fence sitters and it is well settled law that while exercising publiclaw jurisdiction, the courts should not encourage stale claims especiallywhen rights of third parties have been crystalized in the interregnum.B

3.4 It is further submitted that the High Court in paragraph 68 ofthe impugned order has expressly upheld the appointment of the appellantsfrom 30.01.2017 which was not challenged by the respondents herein. Itis submitted that therefore, the contention of the respondents that theappointment ought to have been w.e.f. 12.03.2018 is erroneous. It isCsubmitted that once the appellants were appointed w.e.f. 30.01.2017they ought to have been given the benefit of their revised marks as mereappointment from 30.01.2017 confers no benefit on the appellants.

3.5 It is submitted that being a selection based on merit, the rankin the merit list would determine the seniority of the candidates andDmerely granting notional seniority w.e.f. 30.01.2017 has no bearing. Thelength of service is immaterial as it was on the basis of position earned inthe merit list that a candidate becomes entitled to future appointment.

3.6 It is submitted that notional seniority is to grant the benefit ofseniority without any back wages, arrears and other benefits as ought toEhave been done in the present case. It is submitted that appellants, thoughno fault of their own, as a result of wrong marking were deprived oftheir position in select list dated 30.01.2017 and on the correction of themarking ought to have been given the benefit of notional seniority i.e.,inter se seniority on the basis of merit.F3.7 It is further submitted that the whole foundation of the examwas to draw out a merit list on the basis of marks obtained. Exercise ofre-evaluation was carried out for a total 13 candidates, of which 5candidates were already in the select list notified on 30.01.2017.

3.8 It is submitted that carrying out theexercise of re-evaluationGof 13 candidates which included candidates who were already selectedto the posts of private secretaries could have been done only with theintention of giving the benefit of rank based on merits. It is submittedthat if there was no intention to grant inter se seniority based on marks,there would have been no reason to admit the 5 already selected H

candidates to the process of re-evaluation rendering the entire exerciseredundant.

3.9 It is submitted that all recommendations and decisions of SpecialCommittee have been superseded by Minutes dated 01.10.2018, whichthe High Court has upheld. It is submitted that grant of notional senioritycan only mean placing the candidates as per their merit. The said incorrectmarking was under challenge before issuance of the said select list dated30.01.2017 and the same, thus, had not attained finality.

3.10 It is submitted that the contention of the respondents that asthe appellants were to be adjusted against the additional vacancies iserroneous. It is submitted that the Acting Chief Justice in paragraph 31of note dated 01.03.2018 had noted that “on date there are 22 vacanciesin the post of Private Secretary under 75% test quota in our court.Therefore, there is no difficulty with regard to appointment of those whostand qualified upon the limited re-evaluation without effecting theappointments made earlier. The issue which requires consideration isthe issue of how the seniority of these persons is to be fixed and whetherany re-fixation is necessary.”

It is submitted that the consideration of the Acting Chief Justicewas, thus,that in the event the vacancies were not there, the re-evaluationmay have the result of disturbing the appointments of certain privatesecretaries already made, whose marks are now lower than those of theappellants.

3.11 It is further submitted that the prayers in the writ petitions atthe instance of the respondents herein were in conflict with each other.The respondents on the one hand sought re-evaluation and on the otherhand sought to quash the revised merit list denying successful candidatesthe benefit of re-evaluation especially when the post in question was aselection-cum-merit post.

3.12 It is submitted that the Acting Chief Justice was posed withan exceptional and emergent situation as a result of incorrect evaluationand the actions taken were within the domain as it had no malafides orbias. It is submitted that in fact the re-evaluation and adjustment ofcandidates against the additional vacancies has also been upheld videtheimpugned order which has not been challenged by the respondents.

3.13 It is submitted that as findings of the High Court upholdingthe re-evaluation has not been assailed, the consequences of re-evaluation AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aought to be taken to the logical end i.e., grant of inter se seniority toappellants based on merit viz-a-viz other candidates.

3.14 It is further submitted that the decision of this Court in thecase of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. Vs. Ningam Siro & Ors.(2020) 5 SCC 689 and judgement of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 712/2015Bin the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. RegistrarGeneral of Delhi High Court relied upon by learned counsel appearingon behalf of the respondents shall not be applicable to the facts of thecase on hand.

3.15 Making the above submissions it is prayed to allow the presentCappeals.

4. Shri Maninder Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing onbehalf of the appellants in C.A. No. 2886/2023 – 5 appellants, who assuch were already appointed in the first select list dated 30.01.2017 butwho applied for re-evaluation as such made the same submissions whichDare made by Shri C.U. Singh, learned Senior Advocate.

4.1 It is submitted that the respective appellants were prompt inapplying for re-evaluation of the answers though they were selected inthe first merit list dated 30.01.2017 and their marks came to be increasedon re-evaluation. It is submitted that therefore, the respective appellantsEshall be entitled to the benefit of the revised marks and they are to beplaced appropriately at appropriate place in the selection list/merit list. Itis submitted that not to grant such a relief would tantamount to notgranting any benefit of increase of marks on re-evaluation.

4.2 Making the above submissions it is prayed to allow the presentFappeal – C.A. No. 2886/2023.

5. Shri C.A. Sundaram and Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned SeniorAdvocates have appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents –original writ petitioners. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocatesappearing on behalf of the respective respondents that it will be highlyinequitable and grossly unjust, apart from being ex-facie illegal, to sustainGrevision of merit list to the detriment of the respondents due to followingreasons: - 5.1 Respondents never got an opportunity for re-evaluation oftheir answer-sheets as has been given to the appellants herein. Theyhad no occasion to seek re-evaluation earlier as they were selected andH

appointed on 30.01.2017 itself as per the merit list published at first. Re-evaluation of the appellants herein was due to court orders and decisionof Special Committee even in absence of provision of re-evaluation inthe relevant rules. It was a special concession. Assuming that there wasa provision of re-evaluation, then the same process ought to have beenextended to every candidate who was going to be affected; 5.2 After an independent & different examiner re-evaluated theanswer-sheets of candidates, marks of all 13 increased and had that thesame opportunity been extended to the present respondents, their markscould have also increased. Partial re-evaluation has resulted in ananomaly. For example, Dinesh Kumar’s (R2) answer to Question 3(a)(vi)in written test was ‘Slavery’ and he had been awarded 0 marks for it.However, upon re-evaluation, the appellants were awarded 2 marks forthe same answer. Thus, despite being eligible for 2 additional marks,Dinesh Kumar was demoted in the 2nd and 3rd Merit List.As a result,the answering respondents were placed below less meritorious candidatesdespite being more meritorious than them and an absurd situation hadarisen. Thus, the High Court was justified in setting aside the 2nd and3rd Merit List;

5.3 Even the Acting Chief Justice vide order dated 01.03.2018,opined that an unfortunate situation had arisen due to partial re-evaluationof only 13 candidates as the marks of all 13 candidates had increasedand ideally all papers should have been re-evaluated on identicalstandards. Further, the Special Committee decided on 07.03.2018 thatthe ranks awarded vide 1[st]Merit List will not be disturbed and the newlyselected candidates will be placed at the bottom of the select list as re-evaluation cannot confer any benefit of seniority, which was, as per thecommittee, only way to ensure complete and equitable justice to all thecandidates. Therefore, Notification dated 14.03.2018 directingappointment of appellants stated that they will be placed at the bottom ofthe select list after the last successful candidate in the 1[st]Merit List. Thesaid being the background of appointment of the appellants, the sameought not to have been disturbed subsequently. Revised Merit List dated23.10.2018 was in violation of the recommendations made by the SpecialCommittee on 07.03.2018 which was duly approved by the then ActingChief Justice on 14.03.2018; 5.4 Appellants have not challenged the Notification dated14.03.2018 till date which granted them conditional appointment i.e., they C

D

EF

G

H

Aagreed to be placed at the bottom of the original select list uponappointment without disturbing the seniority of originally selectedcandidates. Thus, having accepted conditional appointment, the appellantscannot be allowed to steal a march over originally selected candidates; 5.5 The special concession granted to the appellants is furtherBestablished by the fact that they were given appointment against futurevacancies, and not the ones advertised in 2016. Equity in favor of theappellants cannot be stretched to defeat the equities in favor of therespondents. Special concession cannot override vested rights.

5.6 It is further submitted that as per the settled principle of law aCcandidate can be granted seniority only from the date he is borne in thecadre and not retrospectively. Reliance is placed on the followingdecisions of this Court in the case of K. Meghchandra Singh (supra)(para 37-39), Nani Shah and Ors. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradeshand Ors., (2007) 15 SCC 406 (para 16) and State of Uttar Pradeshand Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (2014) 14 SCC 720 (paraD24).

5.7 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss thepresent appeals by submitting that by the impugned judgment and orderthe High Court has tried to do the justice between the parties by protectingthe appointments of appellants as well as seniority of the respondents.E6. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respectiveparties at length.

6.1 The issue before this Court for consideration is: whether theappellants herein whose marks were increased pursuant to the exerciseof re-evaluation are entitled to be ranked in accordance with the revisedFmarks in the merit list which determines their seniority for futurepromotions?

6.2 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the result of writtenexamination was declared on 22.12.2016. Before declaration of the meritlist, 3 candidates had filed representations seeking re-checking of theirGanswer sheets between 22.12.2016 to 18.01.2017 which was rejected.Interviews of successful candidates were held on 19/25.01.2017. Thefinal merit list pursuant to the written examination and interviews waspublished and uploaded on internet on 30.01.2017. Appointment of 27candidates as Private Secretaries came to be notified on 02.02.2017.HRespondent – Dinesh Kumar was also provided with a copy of his answer

sheet pursuant to his applicationon 13.02.2017.After the declaration ofthe merit list, 4 candidates sought re-evaluation which were rejected. 8writ petitions including those by appellants came to be filed before theHigh Court regarding re-evaluation. The High Court passed an orderthat having regard to the peculiar features, the Acting Chief Justice mayconsider taking an independent decision as to whether the award ofmarks in respect of the questions involved in these petitions required tobe reappraised independently. That thereafter, the Special Committeeconsisting of 3 Judges was constituted to decide the issue of re-evaluation.While these proceedings were ongoing further representations were filedby candidates for re-evaluation. Total 13 candidates had either filed writpetitions/representations praying for re-evaluation. The meeting of SpecialCommittee held on 10.07.2017 decided that an independent examinerwould be appointed to carry out and that the re-evaluation which will belimited to 13 candidates as the other candidates have accepted the marksawarded to them. The Special Committee also took a decision that there-evaluation would be done of only those questions which werechallenged by writ petitioners/re-presentationists. The decision of theSpecial Committee dated 10.07.2017 attained the finality. At this stage,it is required to be noted that out of 13 candidates, who either filed writpetitions/representations, 5 candidates were as such already appointedpursuant to the earlier select list/merit list dated 30.01.2017. Still theyapplied for re-evaluation/rechecking. That thereafter, after the re-evaluation of the 13 candidates, marks of all 13 candidates increased.The Special Committee in its meeting held on 12.09.2017 directed copyof re-evaluation results be given to the 13 candidates as also to thealready appointed private secretaries and also directed to be uploadedon the internet and also displayed on the notice board. Thus, resultswere, therefore,made known to already selected candidates.In themeantime, one Saphalta Bhati filed writ petition before the High Courtpraying for re-evaluation which came to be dismissed on the grounds ofdelay and laches. That thereafter, the question arose what should bedone on increasing the marks on re-evaluation. As such on increasingthe marks on re-evaluation, the 8 candidates who earlier were deprivedof their appointments were required to be appointed and out of 27candidates, a few already appointed were likely to be affected, therefore,a conscious decision was taken by the Acting Chief Justice to appointthose who stand qualified upon re-evaluation and their appointments tobe adjusted against the additional vacancies. At this stage, the AB

C

DEF

GH

Aadministrative note of the Acting Chief Justice is required to be referredto which reads as under: - “Because of limited re-evaluation of only 13 candidates anunfortunate situation has resulted. However, if re-evaluation ofall papers is now undertaken, it would result in unwarranted delayBand that appointments having been effected 1 year ago, it is difficultto set the clock back.

As there are 22 vacancies of PS under 75% test quota, there isno difficulty with regard to appointment of those who stand qualifiedupon re-evaluation. The issue which requires consideration is theCissue of how the seniority of these persons is to be fixed andwhether any re-fixation is necessary.

Matter referred to the Special Committee is on the aspect offixation of seniority. ’’

6.3 It appears that the consideration of the Acting Chief JusticeDwas, thus, that in the event the vacancies were not there, the re-evaluationmay have the result of disturbing the appointments of certain privatesecretaries already made, whose marks are now lower than those of theappellants. Thus, it can be seen that it is not the appellants, who were tobe adjusted against the additional vacancies but those candidates whoseErank was lowered as a result of revision of marks of appellants andother similarly placed candidates. It is to be noted that in the administrativenote, the Acting Chief Justice also specifically observed that the issuethereafter is required to be considered is the issue of how the seniorityof these persons is to be fixed and whether any re-fixation is necessary.The matter was referred to the Special Committee on the aspect ofFfixation of seniority. That thereafter, the Special Committee initially tookthe decision to put the newly selected candidates at the bottom of theseniority. However, thereafter, on representations made by the appellantsseeking benefit of the seniority on the basis of the revised marks, theSpecial Committee in meeting dated 01.10.2018 decided to accord notionalGseniority in accordance with revised marks to candidates. The samerecommendations came to be approved by the Chief Justice. The decisionof the Special Committee approved by the Chief Justice to accord thenotional seniority in accordance with revised marks to candidates attainedthe finality. Accordingly, the revised merit list was prepared which wasthe subject matter before the High Court.H

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties and considering the fact that the earlier decision ofre-evaluation of 13 candidates attained the finality and thereafter, themarks of 13 candidates came to be increased, the Special Committeewas absolutely justified in its decision dated 01.10.2018 to accord notionalseniority as per the revised marks/merit list. At the relevant time, noneof the selected candidates (22 candidates – respondents herein) appliedfor re-evaluation and even challenged the decision of the SpecialCommittee to re-evaluate the marks of only 13 candidates. Having failedto challenge the earlier decision to have the re-evaluation of 13 candidatesonly and even having not applied for the re-evaluation at the relevanttime though the exercise of re-evaluation was going on thereafter, it wasnot open for the respondents to make a grievance subsequently that there-evaluation of the marks of 13 candidates cannot be at theirdisadvantage. Once on re-evaluation, the marks are increased therespective candidates whose marks are increased will have to be placedat appropriate place in the merit list. Non-grant of seniority based onrevised marks, thus, would render the process of re-evaluationredundant.The candidates whose marks have been increased cannot bedeprived of their position in the select list dated 30.01.2017 and on thecorrection of error, they were required to be given the benefit of notionalseniority i.e., inter se seniority on the basis of merit. There was no faulton the part of the appellants. It was because of the wrong marking atthe relevant time they were deprived of the appointments and they werenot placed in the merit list and as such was required to be corrected onthe revision of the marks on re-evaluation. Therefore, the SpecialCommittee was absolutely justified in taking the decision dated 01.10.2018to accord the notional seniority in accordance with the revised marks tocandidates. The Division Bench of the High Court has materially erredin setting aside the conscious decision taken by the Special Committeeto accord the notional seniority in accordance with the revised marks tocandidates.

8. Now, so far as the decisions relied on behalf of the respondentsreferred to hereinabove, shall not be applicable to the facts of the caseon hand. In the case of K. Meghchandra Singh (supra)the issue underconsideration was that whether while deciding the inter se senioritybetween promotees and direct recruits, seniority to direct recruits canbe granted from the date on which vacancy arose/date of initiation ofrecruitment. In the present, case the appointment of appellants w.e.f.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A30.01.2017 has been upheld, which has not been challenged by therespondents. The grant of inter se seniority to appellants from 30.01.2017is because the exercise of the re-evaluation was essentially a correctionin the select list dated 30.01.2017.

9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theBpresent appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment(s) and order(s)passed by the High Court are hereby quashed and set aside. The decisionof the Special Committee dated 01.10.2018 is hereby restored and it isobserved and held that the respective appellants herein shall be entitledto the notional seniority w.e.f. 30.01.2017 in accordance with the revisedmarks on re-evaluation. Present appeals are accordingly allowed. NoCcosts.

Ankit Gyan

(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Aarsh Choudhary, LCRAs)

Appeals allowed.

D

E

F

G

H