Seniority In Direct Recruitment Through Exam Not Based On Past Service But Mark: Supreme Court
Invalidating an order passed by the Tamil Nadu government, the Supreme Court recently ruled that seniority should be based on performance in the exams rather than past in-service experience and other factors.
The Tamil Nadu government has given in-service candidates seniority over open-market recruits, though the latter scored higher marks in the selection exams.
Read Also: Fake CBSE Result Letter Circulating Online: Board Confirms It’s Not Official
The court clarified that seniority has to be maintained on the basis of performance in the examination and not by considering past service alone once an appointment based upon a competitive examination is made.
The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma. The court was hearing a petition challenging an amendment stating that granting seniority to in-service candidates with lower marks violated the principle of equality (Article 14) and merit-based appointments (Article 16).
Read Also: India Post Starts ‘Gyan Post’ Service To Enable Affordable Delivery Of Books
The Court held that in direct recruitment, seniority cannot be given to in-service candidates who secure low marks.
Basically, there were no promotion quotas fixed for Head Constables for the direct recruitment process for Sub Inspectors. Later on, a government order was passed in 1995 reserving 20% of direct recruitment vacancies for in-service Head Constables and granting them seniority, and these were not initially incorporated into statutory rules.
However, the government order further provided that the intense seniority of the candidates selected under the 20% in-service candidates would be placed above those selected in open competition in that year by way of direct recruitment. The dispute centered on the retrospective effect given to the government order via an amendment to the 1955 Rules in 2017, which sought to formalize the seniority policy from 1995 onwards.
The main dispute was whether the 2017 amendment to Rule 25(a), granting seniority to in-service candidates over direct recruits, violated Articles 14 (equality), 16 (non-discrimination in public employment), and 21 (due process) of the Constitution.
However, the top court disagreed with an earlier High Court ruling which preferred in-service experience to direct recruits while granting seniority. The judgement delivered by Justice Sharma observed that statutory rules cannot be whittled down by executive or government order.
