Shyam Sunder Oberoi & Ors. v. District and Session Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi & Ors.
Background
A group of Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) who were appointed on a regular, substantive basis in 1987 after clearing written and typing tests challenged a Delhi High Court order that gave seniority benefit to a separate group of LDCs. That second group had been appointed on an ad-hoc basis between 1983-1989 and only qualified the typing test later (in 1992 or after), but were regularized from the date of their original ad-hoc appointment by a 2000 order. The Division Bench of the High Court had ruled that these ad-hoc employees could count their seniority from their regularization date, effectively placing them above the appellants who had been selected through the formal 1987 process.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court misread an earlier interim order from 1992 that had nothing to do with the present appellants, and wrongly used it to justify giving the ad-hoc employees seniority benefits over the substantively-appointed appellants. The Court reasoned that those appointed through proper open selection and examination in 1987 could not be made to rank below employees who were only regularized later despite having qualified at a later stage via a relaxed process. The Court found the Division Bench committed a "manifest error" in granting this seniority benefit. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's 2018 judgment was set aside.
Lesson Learnt
Employees who go through the full formal recruitment process (written test plus typing test) generally cannot be placed below those regularized from ad-hoc positions through a relaxed or later qualification process, especially where no seniority rules exist to justify such an inversion.