IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

102 CM-17973-CWP-2025 in/and

CWP-5903-2015 (O&M)

Decided on : 09.12.2025

NARINDER SUDAN

...Petitioner

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

. . . Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

PRESENT: Mr. Rishav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Praveen Chander-Goyal, Senior Panel Counsel

for the respondents-UOI.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

CM-17973-CWP-2025

The present application has been filed by the applicant-petitioner

for fixing the actual date of hearing of the present writ petition as the case

was heard and admitted on 30.03.2015.

Keeping in view the averments enumerated in the present

application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed.

Consequently, the main writ petition (CWP-5903-2015) is taken up on

board for hearing today itself.

CWP-5903-2015

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order

dated 08.10.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by the respondent No. 5- Central

Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), by which, the claim of the petitioner for

appointment to the post of Inspector (Central Excise) with effect from the

2

CM-17973-CWP-2025 in/and

CWP-5903-2015 (O&M)

year 1992 instead of 2004 when the other candidates including one Satish

Rawat pursuant to the same advertisement dated 04.04.1992 were appointed

to the post of Inspector (Customs & Central Excise) against sports quota, has

been dismissed.

2. Certain facts needs to be noted for the correct appreciation of the

issue at hand.

3. An advertisement for making the recruitment to the post of

Inspectors (Customs & Central Excise) against sports-quota, was issued by

the respondents on 04.04.1992. Out of the total advertised posts, two posts

were earmarked for sportsperson relating to the sport of Football. After the

selection process, the interviews of the selected candidates were held on

03.08.1992 and one Satish Rawat was given appointment to the post in

question under the sports quota in the field of Football on 01.09.1992,

whereas, the petitioner was declined the said benefit of selection/recruitment.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the said

selection/appointment of Satish Rawat, immediately in the year 1992 by

filing an original application No. 1018-CH-92 on the ground that the said

Satish Rawat had failed in the field test and was thus not eligible for the

interview, but still he has been selected for the post in question and vide

order dated 06.06.2000 (Annexure A-13), the said original application of the

petitioner was allowed by the Tribunal and the selection of said Satish Rawat

for the post in question was set-aside and direction was also issued to the

respondents to consider the petitioner for the appointment to the post in

question.

3

CM-17973-CWP-2025 in/and

CWP-5903-2015 (O&M)

4. The review application number 35 of 2000 was filed by the

department and Satish Rawat against the said order of the Tribunal dated

06.06.2000 (Annexure A-13) in this Court, which was dismissed by the

Tribunal vide separate orders both dated 03.11.2000.

5. Against the order of quashing of the selection dated 06.06.2000

(Annexure A-13), a civil writ petition bearing No. 15858 of 2000 was filed

by Satish Rawat, which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated

23.11.2000. Keeping in view the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition,

Satish Rawat was relieved from service vide Establishment order No.

71/2001 dated 07.06.2001.

6. As the claim also related to the appointment of the petitioner to

the post in question, but he was not being given the said benefits, the

petitioner again filed an Original Application bearing number

1069/CH/2001before the Tribunal for considering his claim. In the

meantime, in a civil appeal No. 133 of 2001 filed by Satish Rawat

challenging termination of his services keeping in view the order passed by

the Tribunal which was uphled by this Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India passed an order dated 12.02.2002 that both Satish Rawat as well as

the petitioner herein be appointed or absorbed in service. Relevant portion of

the order dated 12.02.2002 is as under:-

“Having examined the matter, we think it will be appropriate

for the Government to work out the method by which both the

appellant and respondent No. 3 be appointed or absorbed in

service.”

4

CM-17973-CWP-2025 in/and

CWP-5903-2015 (O&M)

Satish Rawat was again given appointment vide order dated

17.04.2003 with benefits w.e.f. the year 1992. Thereafter, the petitioner came

to be appointed on 08.01.2004.

8. As, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India directed that both Satish

Rawat and the petitioner herein be appointed or absorbed in service, an

anomaly arose as Satish Rawat was allowed appointment to the post in

question from 17.04.2003 and benefits w.e.f. the year 1992 whereas, the

petitioner was being treated appointed in service from the year 2004 i.e. after

a period of 12 years, for removal of which anomaly, the petitioner

approached the Tribunal by way of filing of Original Application No.

670/PB/2013 with the grievance that he should also be given appointment

from the year 1992.

9. The said original application filed by the petitioner was

dismissed by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 08.10.2014

(Annexure P-4) only on the ground that as, there was no direction to appoint

the petitioner from the retrospective date in the order passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India dated 12.02.2002, the benefit of notional

appointment from 1992 cannot be granted and therefore, the grant of

appointment though in pursuance to the same advertisement dated

04.04.1992 from the year 2004, cannot be ante dated to 1992. The said

order passed by the Tribunal dated 08.10.2014 (Annexure P-4) has been

impugned in the present petition.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once, the

advertisement dated 04.04.1992 for the post in question, in pursuance to

5

CM-17973-CWP-2025 in/and

CWP-5903-2015 (O&M)

which, the petitioner as well as Satish Rawat was selected is one and the

same and both were allowed to be appointed or absorbed in service by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 12.02.2002 and when the

said order was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, neither the

petitioner nor Satish Rawat was in service, once, on the basis of the order

passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Satish Rawat has been given

appointment to the post in question in the year 2003, from the year 1992

denial of the same benefit to the petitioner by the Tribunal is incorrect as the

said act creates anomaly.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

selected candidates from the same advertisement under the same quota are to

be treated alike so as to avoid any discrimination and once, it is a conceded

fact that both petitioner and Satish Rawat came to be appointed to the post in

question arising out from the same advertisement and on the basis of the

order dated 12.02.2002 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ,

parity has to be maintained qua the date of appointment between Satish

Rawat and the petitioner and therefore, once, Satish Rawat has been given

appointment from the year 1992 for all intents and purposes, the petitioner

should also be given the same benefit.

12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the resp ondents

contends that though, the appointment of Satish Rawat was set-aside by the

Tribunal vide order dated 06.06.2000 (Annexure A-13) and that order of the

Tribunal was upheld by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2000 and Satish

Rawat was also relieved from service in 2001, but once, Satish Rawat was

6

CM-17973-CWP-2025 in/and

CWP-5903-2015 (O&M)

allowed to be appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, he was

given appointment from his initial date of joining in the year 1992 i.e.

01.09.1992 whereas, the petitioner has been appointed to post in question

only in the year 2004 and therefore, the parity being claimed by the petitioner

for the grant of retrospective appointment is incorrect as both the petitioner

and Satish Rawat had different facts on the basis of which the action has been

taken by the Department.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the

order was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 12.02.2002 on

the ground that the petitioner has already been given appointment whereas he

was not given appointment, hence, once, on the basis of the order passed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 12.02.2002, the petitioner was

subsequently given appointment to the post in question on 08.01.2004, the

benefit so granted has rightly been appreciated by the Tribunal while passing

the impugned order so as to dismiss the original application, hence, the said

order dated 08.10.2014 (Anneuxre P-4) may kindly be upheld.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that as the

petitioner has approached the Tribunal after a delay of 08 years from the date

of his appointment to the post in question, the benefit could not have been

given as, the same should have been agitated by the petitioner in the year

2004 when he was appointed to the post in question.

15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the case file with their able assistance.

16. The question, which arise before this Court is “Whether, once,

7

CM-17973-CWP-2025 in/and

CWP-5903-2015 (O&M)

two appointments are made in pursuance to the same advertisement/selection,

the appointees can be assigned different dates of appointment, keeping in

view the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

17. It is a conceded fact that on an original application No. 1018-

CH-92 filed by the petitioner, the appointment of the selected candidate

namely, Satish Rawat was set-aside by the Tribunal vide order dated

06.06.2000 (Annexure A-13), which, order was also uphled by this Court

while passing order dated 23.11.2000 (Annexure A-12) but was modified by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 12.02.2002 to hold that

both the petitioner and Satish Rawat be absorbed or appointed in service.

On the basis of the said order dated 12.02.2002 passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India, Satish Rawat who was already relieved from

service in the year 2001, was again reinstated in service in the year 2003 and

was given seniority from the year 1992. It is also a conceded position that on

the basis of the same order dated 12.02.2002 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India, the petitioner was also given appointment keeping in view the

findings recorded by the Tribunal qua his entitlement. That being so, there

cannot be any differentiating facts especially when both the petitioner and

Satish Rawat were directed to be appointed or absorbed in service in

pursuance to the order dated 12.02.2002 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India.

18. It may be noticed that once, the respondents themselves allowed

the retrospective appointment in favour of Satish Rawat from the year

1992,after reinstating him in service in the year 2003, the said benefit should

8

CM-17973-CWP-2025 in/and

CWP-5903-2015 (O&M)

have been extended to the petitioner as well so as to avoid any

discrimination.

19. The law on the said issue is well settled that the selected

candidates of the same advertisement should be treated alike so as to avoid

any discrimination.

20. As per the law settled by the Hon’ble supreme Court of India

while passing judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 1993-95 of 2020 titled as C.

Jayachandran v. State of Kerala and others, decided on 04.03.2020,

wherein it has been held that the relevant date for determination of seniority

would be the date from which other candidates in the same selection process

were appointed. In case, anyone has wrongly been excluded from the

appointment and the appointment was subsequently made, the compensatory

action has to be taken to give notional appointment from retrospective effect.

The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is as under:-

“35.The earlier writ petition filed by the appellant was

allowed on 13th September, 2010. The Division Bench of

the High Court has directed to re-cast the seniority

amongst the seven shortlisted candidates. The appellant

was one of them. The challenge to the said order by three

affected candidates remained unsuccessful when SLP was

dismissed by this Court on 8th October, 2010. The 22 SLP

was filed by the candidates who were granted benefit of

moderation of marks. Once the direction of the Division

Bench has attained finality, the appellant was entitled to

9

CM-17973-CWP-2025 in/and

CWP-5903-2015 (O&M)

seniority as per the select list to be revised as per merit of

the candidates. In terms of Rule 6(2), the seniority is to be

determined by the serial order in which the name

appeared in the appointment order. The argument of

learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 that the

appellant was not appointed by the same appointment

order, therefore, the appellant cannot claim seniority is

not tenable. The appellant was entitled to be appointed

along with other three candidates but because of the

action of the High Court in adopting moderation of

marks, the appellant was excluded from appointment. The

exclusion of appellant from appointment was on account

of an illegal act by the High Court which has been so

found by the judgment dated 13th September, 2010. Since

the select list has to be revised, the appellant would be

deemed to be the part of the appointment along with other

candidates in the same select list. As the actual date of

appointment was on 24th February, 2011, the appellant

cannot actually be treated to be appointed on 30th March,

2009 but is entitled to notional appointment from that

date and consequential seniority.

36. In Sanjay Dhar, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held

as under: “16. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is

allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. It is

10

CM-17973-CWP-2025 in/and

CWP-5903-2015 (O&M)

directed that the appellant shall be deemed to have been

appointed along with other appointees under the

appointment order dated 6-3-1995 and assigned a place

23 of seniority consistently with his placement in the

order of merit in the select list prepared by J&K PSC and

later forwarded to the Law Department…”

37. In Lakshmana Rao Yadavalli, this Court held as under:

“13. For the reasons recorded in Lakshmana Rao

Yadavalli v. State of A.P. [Set out in paras 1 to 13,

above.] , the present appeals are allowed and it is

directed that the High Court as well as the respondent

State will do the needful for giving appointment to the

appellant with retrospective effect i.e. from the date on

which she ought to have been appointed, however, she

shall not be paid salary for the period during which she

has not worked as a District and Sessions Judge. We are

sure that the respondents will do the needful for the

appointment of the appellant at an early date.”

38. In view of the above, the appellant having been

participated in the same selection process and in view of

the direction of the Division Bench of the High Court, was

rightly placed by the High Court by giving him revised

select list placing him at Sl. No. 41 by pushing

Badharudeen from general category candidate to OBC

11

CM-17973-CWP-2025 in/and

CWP-5903-2015 (O&M)

category candidate at Sl. No. 42.

39. The appellant was wrongfully excluded from the process

of appointment on account of an illegal and arbitrary

grant of moderation of marks. The Government in its

Order dated 22nd December, 2010 cancelled the

appointment of three District and Sessions Judges who

were granted benefit of moderation. Badharudeen was

earlier assigned general category seat but since the

appellant was higher in merit, Badharudeen was pushed

down and adjusted against OBC category seat at Sl. No.

42. 24 Badharudeen has not challenged his pushing down

at Sl. No. 42 either before the learned Single Bench of the

High Court or before the Division Bench of the High

Court or even before this Court. Therefore, as respondent,

he cannot be permitted to dispute the grant of seniority to

the appellant at Sl. No. 41. The judgment referred to by

learned counsel is not helpful to the arguments raised as

the appellant therein sought seniority as direct recruit

from the time when the vacancies occurred. To raise such

an argument, reliance was placed upon judgment of this

Court reported in Union of India & Ors. v. N.R. Parmar

& Ors. 9 , wherein this Court held that a person is

disentitled to claim seniority from the date he was not

borne in the service. The said finding is in the context of

12

CM-17973-CWP-2025 in/and

CWP-5903-2015 (O&M)

the claim of the appellant to claim seniority from the date

of availability of the vacancies; whereas in the present

case, the appellant is claiming seniority from the date the

other candidates in the same selection process were

appointed but the appellant is excluded on account of an

illegal act of the High Court of the moderation of marks.

Therefore, the said judgment is not of any help to the

arguments raised.

XXXXXXX XX XXXXX

41. Still further, the Division Bench of the High Court has

completely erred in law in holding that the appellant has

delayed the challenge of his appointment vide order dated

22nd December, 2010. The appellant was appointed

pursuant to a direction issued earlier by the Division

Bench. The Division Bench has directed to re-cast the 26

select list and in such select list, the name of the appellant

appears at Sl. No. 3 and that of Badharudeen at Sl. No. 4.

The appellant has submitted the representation on 11th

April, 2012 i.e. within 1 year and 2 months of his joining

and submitted reminder on 18th September, 2014. It is the

High Court which has taken time to take a final call on

the representation of the appellant and other direct

recruits. The appellant was prosecuting his grievances in

a legitimate manner of redressal of grievances. Therefore,

13

CM-17973-CWP-2025 in/and

CWP-5903-2015 (O&M)

it cannot be said that the claim of the appellant was

delayed as he has not claimed the date of appointment as

30th March, 2009. The appellant having been factually

appointed vide communication dated 22nd December,

2010, he could not assume or claim to assume charge

prior to such offer of appointment. The appellant has to

be granted notional seniority from the date the other

candidates were appointed in pursuance of the same

select list prepared on the basis of the common

appointment process. ”

21. In the present case also, the petitioner was given appointment in

pursuance to the same advertisement on the basis of which Satish Rawat was

appointed to the post in question, which is conceded fact.

22. The controversy was whether Satish Rawat has to be appointed

or the petitioner has to be appointed to the post in question, but ultimately,

on the basis of the order dated 12.02.2002 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India, both were directed to be appointed to the post in question,

hence, once, both were to be appointed, the benefit of appointment was

required to be given to the petitioner in equivalent to the one given to Satish

Rawat, who was also be reinstated in service after the order dated

12.02.2002 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and was

reinstated in service in the year 2003 and was given retrospective

appointment from the year 1992, therefore, the denial of the same benefit to

14

CM-17973-CWP-2025 in/and

CWP-5903-2015 (O&M)

the petitioner is incorrect and said action of the respondents will amount to

the discrimination and will also be contrary to the settled principles of law.

23. Further, a bare perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble

supreme Court of India dated 12.02.2002 in Satish Rawat’s case, it has been

mentioned that Satish Rawat is to be given the benefit of appointment from

the year 1992, the respondents were also bound that both the candidates

were to be absorbed /appointed in service, the said observations were also

required to be adopted qua petitioner as well.

24. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point

out as to why, once, on the basis of the same selection process, two

candidates have been appointed and that too on the basis of the same order

passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Satish Rawat has already

been given the benefit of appointment w.e.f. the year 1992 by reinstating

him in service in the year 2003, the other candidate has been denied the

same benefits. Hence, in the absence of any such valid justification, the

parity of the selected candidates out of the same selection process cannot be

tempered with.

25. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised an argument

that the petitioner was appointed by the respondents in the year 2004 but he

raised his grievance in the year 2013 after a delay of nine years, therefore, the

claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It may be noticed that the said

delay could have been equally balanced qua the benefits to be granted. By

granting a retrospective appointment to an employee, the monetary benefit

could have been withheld so that the delay does not cause prejudice to the

15

CM-17973-CWP-2025 in/and

CWP-5903-2015 (O&M)

department in any manner.

26. Hence, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the

petitioner is also held entitled for notional appointment to the post in

question from the date when the benefit of appointment was given to Satish

Rawat in view of the order dated 12.02.2002 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India i.e. from 01.09.1992, according to which order, both the

candidates were required to be absorbed /appointed in service.

27. Though, the petitioner will be getting the appointment from the

date when Satish Rawat was appointed to the post of Inspector (Central

Excise) i.e. 01.09.1992, but the said appointment will be notional in nature.

He will not be paid any arrear upon retrospective appointment till date he

approached the Tribunal in the year 2013.

28. On the basis of the notional appointment as Inspector (Central

Excise) from 01.09.1992, fixation of the salary and seniority of the petitioner

from the said date will also be extended to the petitioner but arrears upto

re-fixation of salary will only be restricted upto 01.05.2013 i.e. the date of

filing of the original application by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The

arrears of salary will be given to the petitioner after 01.05.2013.

29 Further, keeping in view the retrospective appointment from

01.09.1992 in case, any junior of the petitioner has been promoted further,

the petitioner will also be entitled for the consideration of the said promotion

in case, he is found suitable on the said date when his juniors have been

promoted further. But no one already promoted will be disturbed and

supernumerary post will be created to grant the benefit to the petitioner.

16

CM-17973-CWP-2025 in/and

CWP-5903-2015 (O&M)

30. Keeping in view the above, the impugned order da ted

08.10.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Tribunal is hereby set-aside and

the present writ petition is allowed in above stated terms and the same be

implemented within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy

of this order.

31. Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand

disposed of.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)

JUDGE

( VIKAS SURI )

JUDGE

09.12.2025

Riya

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No