Hon’ble SC while allowing the appeal filed against the Madras HC, which has upheld the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Madras in the case P. Subramaniyam Vs. Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 7779 of 2012] on 15-03-2019 stated that the department was not expected to advice and/or tell the employee about how the seniority will be fixed and/or about the rotaquota rule.

Fact– Here Appellant appointed as semiskilled worker in 1991 in the respondent no.2 office, namely Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project Trichy. Then he is promoted to Highly Skilled worker in yr 2000 then, the next promotional post was the Chargeman Grade II (Electrical) which is governed by the Statutory Rule and the post was required to be filled in as per the quota prescribed for that post, namely 50% by way of promotion; 25% by way of LDCE (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination) and 25% by way of Direct Recruitment. The appellant herein was promoted to the post of Chargeman GradeII (Electrical in the quota of 25% LDCE. The respondent no.4 was also applied for the post of Chargemen GradeII (Electrical) in 25% DR quota as well as 25% LDCE & was selected in both the quotas and then appointed in the DR quota all along the appellant.

When the seniority list in the cadre of Chargeman GradeII was published considering the relevant Rule and, as per the rule position in that year, the direct recruitee was to be placed below the LDCE, as the LDCE selection process is stated as Fasttrack promotion. Respondent No. 4 was placed in the seniority list below the appellant, as he appointed through DR quota. Therefore, respondent made a representation to the respondent No.2 stating, he was appointed to the said post much prior to the appellant was promoted. So, there is a mistake in the selection list and he should be placed above in the seniority list than the appellant. But it was rejected and provides reason that selection is as per the rotaquota rule.

Thereafter respondent No. 4 approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras by way of O.A. No. 161 of 2006. It was the case on behalf of respondent No. 4 before the learned Tribunal with argument that if he would have been told with respect to the rotaquota rule and would have been told that a direct recruitee shall be placed below the LDCE promotee and below the promotee who has been promoted in LDCE quota, in that case, he would have opted for the appointment against LDCE quota. The O.A was opposed by the department. However, by the judgment and order dated 31.10.2006, the learned Tribunal allowed the said O.A. by observing that as an employee respondent No. 4 was not aware of the rotaquota rule maintained by the department. The learned Tribunal observed that the department has failed to give proper guidance and advice to one of its employees and therefore he could not be denied of his legitimate right which will have a bearing on his seniority and directed the department to place the original applicant in the seniority list above the appellant herein and one another. Then, feeling with this order appellant preferred a writ petition in the High court but has been dismissed and uphold the previous order. Hence, petitioner preferred appeal to the Supreme Court

Judgement– Hon’ble SC accepts the appeal and stated that the department was not expected to advise and/or tell the employee about how the seniority will be fixed and/or about the rotaquota rule. As the appellant was appointed in the LDCE quota and in the very year, respondent No. 4 was appointed as a direct recruitee. As observed herein above, as per the rule position in that year, the direct recruitee was to be placed below the LDCE, therefore, respondent No. 4 was rightly placed below the appellant in the seniority list being a direct recruitee. Under the circumstances, both, the High Court as well as the learned Tribunal committed an error in directing to place respondent No. 4 in the seniority list above the appellant so, it was quashed and set aside. Hence appellant succeeds.