SUNIL & ORS. versus HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS. ETC

Citation: [2023] 5 S.C.R. 87 · Decided: 28-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
87
SUNIL & ORS.
v.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2883-2885 of 2023)
APRIL 28, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Service Law – Inter-se seniority – Filling of vacant posts of
private secretaries in the High Court of Delhi – Written examination
was conducted – Results were declared – Writ petitions filed by
some of the candidates seeking re-evaluation – High Court
constituted a Special Committee, which recommended re-evaluation
of 13 candidates, resulting in increased marks for all – Revised list
was drawn – Issue of inter-se seniority arose – Special Committee
by its decision dated 01.10.2018 accorded notional seniority as
per the revised marks/merit list – Held: Considering the fact that
the earlier decision of re-evaluation of 13 candidates attained the
finality and thereafter, the marks of 13 candidates came to be
increased, the Special Committee was absolutely justified in its
decision dated 01.10.2018 to accord notional seniority as per the
revised marks/merit list – Once on re-evaluation, the marks are
increased the respective candidates whose marks are increased will
have to be placed at appropriate place in the merit list – Non-grant
of seniority based on revised marks, thus, would render the process
of re-evaluation redundant.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Considering the fact that the earlier decision of
re-evaluation of 13 candidates attained the finality and thereafter,
the marks of 13 candidates came to be increased, the Special
Committee was absolutely justified in its decision dated
01.10.2018 to accord notional seniority as per the revised marks/
merit list. At the relevant time, none of the selected candidates
(22 candidates – respondents herein) applied for re-evaluation
and even challenged the decision of the Special Committee to
re-evaluate the marks of only 13 candidates. Having failed to
challenge the earlier decision to have the re-evaluation of 13
candidates only and even having not applied for the re-evaluation
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 87
87
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
at the relevant time though the exercise of re-evaluation was
going on thereafter, it was not open for the respondents to make
a grievance subsequently that the re-evaluation of the marks of
13 candidates cannot be at their disadvantage. Once on re-
evaluation, the marks are increased the respective candidates
whose marks are increased will have to be placed at appropriate
place in the merit list. Non-grant of seniority based on revised
marks, thus, would render the process of re-evaluation redundant.
The candidates whose marks have been increased cannot be
deprived of their position in the select list dated 30.01.2017 and
on the correction of error, they were required to be given the
benefit of notional seniority i.e., inter se seniority on the basis of
merit. There was no fault on the part of the appellants. It was
because of the wrong marking at the relevant time they were
deprived of the appointments and they were not placed in the
merit list and as such was required to be corrected on the revision
of the marks on re-evaluation. Therefore, the Special Committee
was absolutely justified in taking the decision dated 01.10.2018
to accord the notional seniority in accordance with the revised
marks to candidates. The Division Bench of the High Court has
materially erred in setting aside the conscious decision taken by
the Special Committee to accord the notional seniority in
accordance with the revised marks to candidates. [Para 7][101-
A-F]
K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. v. Ningam Siro & Ors.
(2020) 5 SCC 689 : [2019] 16 SCR 651; Centre for
Public Interest Litigation v. Registrar General of Delhi
High Court W.P. (C) No. 712/2015; Nani Shah and
Ors. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., (2007) 15
SCC 406 : [2007] 6 SCR 1027; State of Uttar Pradesh
and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava (2014) 14 SCC
720 : [2013] 11 SCR 846 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2019] 16 SCR 651
referred to
Para 3.14
[2007] 6 SCR 1027
referred to
Para 5.6
[2013] 11 SCR 846
referred to
Para 5.6
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
89
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2883-
2885 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.09.2022 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC Nos. 949, 7893 of 2019 and 10668 of
2022.
With
Civil Appeal No. 2886 of 2023.
Chander Uday Singh, Maninder Singh, Sr. Advs., Ms. Bhavana
Duhoon, Anshul Syal, Ms. Bidya Mohanty, Amjid Maqbool, Ankur
Chhibber, H. S. Tiw

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.