Supreme Court Grants Notional Seniority To Private Secretaries At Delhi High Court Whose Marks Increased Post Re-evaluation Of Answer Sheets

Recently, the Supreme Court granted notional seniority to Private Secretaries at the Delhi High Court, who had applied against 27 vacant posts in 2016, on the basis of a revised merit list upon increase of marks on re-evaluation of their answer sheets.

A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice Sanjay Karol set aside the order of the Delhi High Court which quashed the revised merit list prepared by a Special Committee of the High Court granting notional seniority to the Private Secretary whose marks had increased upon re-evaluation and was more than those appointed.

Factual Background

In 2016, the Delhi High Court invited applications to fill up 27 vacant posts of private secretaries. Before the final merit list was declared 3 candidates made representations seeking re-checking of their answer sheets. The Selection Committee rejected the representation on the ground that there was no provision for re-checking in Delhi High Court (Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1972. Thereafter, interviews of the successful candidate were held.

One candidate obtained a copy of her answer sheet and made a representation requesting for re-evaluation and an opportunity to appear in the interview. In the meanwhile the merit list post examination and interview was published. The High Court notified the list on 30.01.2017. A few candidates obtained copies of their answer sheets and made representations seeking re-evaluation. Subsequently, a writ petition was filed by them before the High Court. A Special Committee decided that an independent examiner would re-evaluate the answer sheet of the 13 candidates who have made representations. Post re-evaluation marks of all 13 candidates, which included 5 who had already been appointed, were increased. Eventually, another candidate filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking re-evaluation, which was dismissed on the ground of delays and laches.

On 01.03.2018, the Acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court decided that those candidates whose marks have been increased and their marks are found to be higher than the candidates already appointed, may be appointed against 22 vacancies of private secretaries without disturbing the earlier 27 vacancies. The Acting CJ left the issue of seniority to be decided by the Special Committee. The Committee decided that the 5 already appointed candidates would be entitled to the grant of seniority while the other newly selected candidates would be at the bottom of the seniority. A candidate made a representation seeking re-evaluation on 25.05.2018, almost 15 months after the date of obtaining the answer sheet. The High Court rejected his representations for delay.

The candidates who were not granted seniority approached the High Court. The Special Committee decided to grant notional seniority in accordance with revised marks. A revised merit list was uploaded on 23.10.2018.

A candidate filed a writ petition seeking consideration of her case by the Special Committee. The Special Committee considered it and increased her marks. The candidate whose re-evaluation request was rejected on the ground of delay again filed a writ petition seeking the same.

A batch of 21 candidates who were appointed earlier filed a writ petition on the ground that their ranks were affected as a result of the merit list dated 23.10.2018. A revised list was uploaded by the High Court on 17.12.2021 after including the name of the candidate whose marks had increased after re-evaluation. The High Court, eventually, allowed the writ petition filed by 21 candidates and set aside the merit list dated 23.10.2018 and 17.12.201. It further noted that the merit list issued on 30.01.2017 would be the basis for deciding seniority, and those who were granted benefit of re-evaluation would be considered as appointed on 30.01.2017. The seniority position would be considered after the last appointed candidate. The said order of the High Court has been impugned before the Apex Court.

Issue before the Supreme Court

Whether the appellants whose marks were increased pursuant to the exercise of re-evaluation are entitled to be ranked in accordance with the revised marks in the merit list which determines their seniority for future promotions?

Analysis by the Supreme Court

With respect to the appointment of the 13 candidates who marks had increased upon re-evaluation, the Court referred to an administrative note of the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court, which reads as under -

“Because of limited re-evaluation of only 13 candidates an unfortunate situation has resulted. However, if re-evaluation of all papers is now undertaken, it would result in unwarranted delay and that appointments having been effected 1 year ago, it is difficult to set the clock back.

As there are 22 vacancies of PS under 75% test quota, there is no difficulty with regard to appointment of those who stand qualified upon re-evaluation. The issue which requires consideration is the issue of how the seniority of these persons is to be fixed and whether any re-fixation is necessary.

Matter referred to the Special Committee is on the aspect of fixation of seniority.”

The Court observed that the Acting CJ had noted that in the event the 22 vacancies were not there, the re-evaluation would have the result of disrupting the appointment of those candidates who had secured higher marks than the candidates whose marks had increased after re-evaluation. It noted that, in essence, the candidates with lower marks and not the appellants were to be adjusted against the 22 additional vacancies.

The Court noted that the Special Committee was justified in granting notional seniority to the appellants, as per the revised merit list. The Court observed -

“Once on re-evaluation, the marks are increased the respective candidates whose marks are increased will have to be placed at appropriate place in the merit list. Non-grant of seniority based on revised marks, thus, would render the process of re-evaluation redundant.”

It was also taken note of that there was no error on the part of the appellants, but the authorities who wrongly marked the answer sheets at the relevant time, depriving the appellants of the appointments and their place in the seniority list.

Case details

Sunil And Ors. v. High Court of Delhi And Ors. Etc.| 2023 LiveLaw SC 374   | Civil Appeal No. 2883-2885 of 2023| 28th April, 2023| Justice MR Shah and Justice Sanjay Karol

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment