Merit must decide seniority in common recruitment, not department of posting: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that seniority of candidates selected through a common recruitment process for appointments in multiple departments must be determined strictly on the basis of the joint merit list — regardless of the department in which they are posted — and that a forced change in posting cannot prejudice an employee’s seniority.

“It is a settled principle of law that where there is a direct recruitment, the merit has to prevail for determining the seniority of the candidates,” Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi asserted. The ruling came in a case where a common selection process was conducted by Punjab for the post of Sub Divisional Engineer (Civil) across various departments.

Appearing for the petitioner-employee, advocates Manu K. Bhandari, Rohit Kataria and Arjun Sawhni contended that a joint merit list was prepared based on a competitive examination, after which candidates were asked to give their preference for the department of posting.

The petitioner “had also given certain options”. Based on merit, availability of vacancies and his preference, he “was appointed on May 9, 2022, in the Department of Water Resources, where he joined on May 20, 2023.”

Justice Sethi asserted some posts in the Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) remained vacant. The petitioner was subsequently ‘upgraded’ from his department to PUDA without seeking his consent “keeping in view the option given by the petitioner for appointment”. The court observed that the petitioner, apprehending loss in seniority, declined to go to the PUDA but was mandatorily relieved by the department. He joined the authority in the absence of option

As the case came up for hearing, two issues fell for determination — whether the petitioner should be sent back to the department or allowed to continue in PUDA “with the seniority above the candidate, who was lesser meritorious than the petitioner in the joint merit list and was also appointed in the same selection in PUDA”.

Justice Sethi accepted the State’s contention that another candidate selected in the same selection had already been appointed in the department after the petitioner’s transfer. He was performing the duties for the last approximately two years and was not a party. He would suffer in case the petitioner was sent back. Describing the State’s stand “valid”, Justice Sethi held: “Dislodging the candidate, especially when, he/she is not a party, will not be permissible, hence, the request… is declined.”

Justice Sethi ruled the recruitment was common for all departments. As such, the petitioner ‘upgraded’ from the department to PUDA, could not lose his seniority and “declared junior to a person who was less meritorious in the joint merit list but was appointed in the PUDA prior to the date the petitioner joined.”

Directing restoration of his merit-based seniority, Justice Sethi ordered: “PUDA is directed to fix the petitioner’s seniority in the cadre of Sub Divisional Engineer (Civil) over and above the candidate, who is immediately lesser in merit in joint merit list, the selection process… Service rendered by the petitioner in Department of Water Resources, Punjab, will be counted as a valid service for all intents and purposes.”