Supreme Court on the Meaning of Seniority-cum-Merit Principle

 

INTRODUCTION

 

On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Tek Chand and others v. Bhakra Beas Management Board and Others, Civil Appeal No. 4482/2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the meaning of Seniority-cum-Merit Principle in Service Jurisprudence.

 

Briefly speaking, seniority-cum-merit implies that even if a senior is less meritorious than its juniors, then also he may be considered for promotion provided he possesses minimum standard of merit. In order to further understand the significance of seniority-cum-merit, let us go through the case at hand.

 

FACTS

 

The brief facts of the case are that the Appellants were admittedly senior to the Respondents and all of them were working as Fireman in the Bhakra Beas Management Board. One of the Respondents filed a Writ Petition claiming to be considered for promotion to the post of Leading Fireman in view of the available vacancies. The Appellants came to be promoted during the pendency of the Writ Petition and were impleaded in their Writ Petition by the Respondent. Though no relief was sought against the Appellants, yet the High Court annulled the promotion of the Appellants as being ineligible under the Service Regulations and directed for the promotion of the Respondent. According to the High Court, the Appellants did not possess Appreciation Certificate which was a mandatory condition to get promoted. This Order of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court.

 

Now, let us understand the observations by the Supreme Court.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court perused the Service Rules of the parties and opined that according to the Service Rules, the appointment by promotion is to be made on seniority-cum-merit basis and is not a matter of right.

 

Secondly, the Court observed that though a good service record is required for selection based on seniority-cum-merit, but if a Fireman wanted, he is free to possess additional qualifications such as an Appreciation Certificate.

 

Thirdly, the Court found it difficult to accept that both seniority-cum-merit and possessing Appreciation Certificate, were mandatory and conjunctive requirements for promotion, as according to the Service Rules, for promotion to the post of Leading Fireman, a Fireman is required to be either a qualified heavy vehicles driving license holder along with 5 years’ experience or should have qualified in a Fire Course with heavy vehicles license along with 7 years’ experience or should show appreciable initiative and obtain good reports with heavy vehicle license along with 10 years’ experience.

 

Fourthly, the Court noted that the language of the Service Rules shall require a literal interpretation and “a person possessing good reports is eligible to be considered for   appointment by promotion.” Apart from it, seniority is to be given due weightage and even if a junior has an Appreciation Certificate and the senior does not, then also the “senior shall march ahead on the seniority-cum-merit principle.” Thus, no extra weightage for the Appreciation Certificate is to be given to the employees.

 

Fifthly, the Court also explained the meaning of seniority-cum-merit principle in service jurisprudence. According to the Court, “where the promotion is based on seniority­cum­merit, the officer cannot claim promotion as a matter of right by virtue of his seniority alone and if he is found unfit to discharge the duties of the higher post, he may be passed over and an officer junior to him may be promoted.” Further, the Court noted that “Seniority­cum­merit means that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior though the less meritorious shall have priority.”

 

Sixthly, the Court observed that a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made in case the minimum necessary merit is possessed by the senior and the competent authority can lay down the minimum standard of merit based on appraisal of service record and interview.

 

Seventhly, the Court interpreted the Clause in the Service Rules that prescribed that “no person shall be appointed to the service unless he possesses the essential qualifications and experience”. According to the Court, the use of the word ‘and’ does not make it mandatory for a candidate to possess both the essential qualifications and experience because if such were the case, then the seniority-cum-merit principle would have no applicability left.

 

Eighthly, the Court also observed that no relief was sought by the Respondents in their Writ Petition against the Appellants and the High Court was not justified in annulling the promotion of the Appellants and issuing the Writ of Mandamus for promoting the Respondent, as promotion is not a matter of right and at best, the High Court could have directed the competent authority to consider the claim of the Respondent for promotion.

 

And lastly, the Court mentioned that a Writ Petition cannot become a springboard for out of turn promotion of juniors superseding their seniors and taking them by surprise without affording them an opportunity to contest leaving them remediless. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court decided not to interfere with the promotion of the Respondent.

 

HELD BY THE COURT

 

Therefore, upon cumulative consideration, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal holding that the Appellants were eligible to be considered for promotion and their orders of promotion were restored subject to the principle of seniority-cum-merit.

 

That was all about the case. So, what are my concluding remarks?

 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

 

It is interesting to observe that in the present case, some of the Appellants had retired from their services and were simply contesting the case for restoring their honour. Service Jurisprudence is tricky and even a simple misinterpretation has devastating consequences upon the entire career of a litigant. Thus, the Supreme Court very rightly observed that a Writ Petition ought not to become a jump board for the juniors to seek out of turn promotions and for checkmating the seniors by getting their promotions annulled. If such practices are adopted in Service parlance, then it would lead to immense heart burning and would affect the overall efficiency of the employees.