18 July 2024 Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In a recent legal development in the matter of Naresh Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India and Others, the courts deliberated on a review petition challenging the seniority and promotion decisions within the Civil Service. The case stemmed from a writ petition filed earlier by the petitioner, seeking various reliefs including the annulment of certain administrative orders and the adjustment of seniority lists to secure a promotion to the position of Executive Engineer (EE).

The initial writ petition was dismissed by the court, which ruled that the petitioner could not claim seniority from a date preceding their actual assumption of duties as an EE, citing established legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro.

Undeterred, the petitioner subsequently filed a review petition contesting the court's decision. Central to their argument was the contention that the seniority list had been improperly prepared, allegedly misapplying a relevant Supreme Court judgment, namely the Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn case.

The crux of the petitioner's case rested on the diversion of vacancies from one quota (Assistant Executive Engineers - AEEs) to another (Assistant Engineers - AEs), which they argued had not been appropriately accounted for in determining their seniority. They asserted that the application of the Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn case by the respondents was erroneous and did not align with the specifics of their situation.

In response, the respondents, including official and private parties, defended the seniority list's preparation, stating it had been done in strict adherence to applicable laws and court decisions. They emphasized that objections had been duly considered before finalizing the list.

After thorough deliberation and a careful review of all submissions and records presented by both parties, the court rendered its decision. It concluded that there were no grounds to overturn the original judgment regarding the petitioner's seniority and promotion. The court upheld the legality of the seniority list issued on January 17, 2020, which had sparked the petitioner's challenge.

Furthermore, the court addressed the issue of delay in filing the review petition, initially amounting to a 236-day delay. After considering the reasons presented by the petitioner, the court exercised its discretion to condone the delay, allowing the review petition to proceed.