RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN Vs. DTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners secured appointment as Traffic Superintendents (re-designated as Manager Traffic) in the year 1987 and are aggrieved by the fact that seniority assigned to the 13 persons appointed as Traffic Superintendents is predicated on the date of birth with the eldest being the senior most and the youngest being the junior most. However, inter-se the petitioners, they have a conflict of interest inasmuch as the writ petitioners of pray that inter-se seniority be determined with reference to the marks obtained by the candidates at the time of initial appointment and the writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.13615/2009 pray that inter-se seniority be determined with reference to the marks obtained by them at a test conducted after all persons successfully completed the training period.

(2.) It is not in dispute that no tentative seniority list was ever circulated and none was given an opportunity to file a representation against the seniority list. In fact, strictly speaking there exists no seniority list. None has been shown to this Court. The dispute has emanated on account of a communication addressed to the writ petitioners in response to a query regarding their seniority position, informing them, that all those who were appointed as Traffic Superintendents before them would naturally be senior to them and inter-se the batch of 13 persons recruited in the year 1987, the seniority would be as per age.

(3.) The problem is compounded due to the reason DTC does not have any rule which guides inter-se seniority to be fixed. As per the writ petitioners of the seniority has to be in terms of the OM dated 3.7.1986 issued by the Government of India which requires seniority of direct recruits to be determined by the order of merit in which they were selected. The claim of the writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.13615/2009 is on the basis of the principle adopted to determine the inter-se seniority of the recruits recruited in the year 1989 when seniority was determined on the basis of the merit position at the examination held on the conclusion of the training of the period. It may be noted that the writ petitioners of also draw sustenance from a past precedent pertaining to the 1978 batch of Assistant Traffic Superintendents, whose inter-se seniority was determined with reference to the relative merit position at the time of the initial selection.