Tribunal Upholds Parmar Judgment, Rejects Review Application, Emphasizes Seniority Lists Compliance

The Tribunal upheld the implementation of the Parmar judgment, emphasizing its finality and dismissing the Government's review application. It directed the maintenance of seniority lists in accordance with the Parmar decision, urging prompt action and rejecting adhoc appointments. Criticizing the Government's approach, the Tribunal quashed attempts for further consideration beyond legal avenues. It set a strict timeline for implementing the Parmar judgment, emphasizing expeditious action and the constitution of a committee to address objections promptly. The Tribunal stressed institutional morality and government responsibility in seniority disputes, with all directions to be diligently followed, and no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Implementation of the Parmar judgment.
2. Seniority list maintenance and objections.
3. Government's approach to the implementation of the Supreme Court's order.
4. Adhoc appointments and their legality.
5. Time frame for implementing the Parmar judgment.

Summary:

1. Implementation of the Parmar Judgment:
The Tribunal emphasized that the Parmar judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which concluded that the rota quota rule should be applied to employees, is final and must be implemented without reconsideration. The Government's review application was dismissed, reinforcing the judgment's applicability.

2. Seniority List Maintenance and Objections:
The applicants approached the Tribunal with OA Nos. 128/2013, 129/2013, 145/2013, and 146/2013 regarding the seniority list. The Tribunal decided to dispose of all four matters together, noting that the Parmar decision supersedes previous decisions and must be maintained unless compelling reasons exist. The Tribunal directed the respondents to finalize the new seniority list after considering 150 objections within one month.

3. Government's Approach to the Implementation of the Supreme Court's Order:
The Tribunal criticized the Government's approach of seeking further consideration from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the Department of Legal Affairs (DoLA), stating that it is beyond their power and jurisdiction. The Tribunal quashed the letter from the Department of Revenue and its supportive matrix, emphasizing that only a review or appeal can legally lie in case of executive disagreement.

4. Adhoc Appointments and Their Legality:
The Tribunal rejected the respondents' suggestion of making adhoc appointments, stating that it would lead to multiple needless litigations. The Tribunal asserted that there cannot be any adhoc appointment against the Parmar decision.

5. Time Frame for Implementing the Parmar Judgment:
The Tribunal directed the respondents to implement the Parmar judgment expeditiously. A committee of five senior officers was to be constituted to consider the objections on a day-to-day basis and report within one week. A new final seniority list was to be brought into effect within one month, and any grievances could be addressed by approaching the Tribunal.

Additional Points:
- The Tribunal highlighted the importance of institutional morality and the government's role as a silent spectator in seniority and promotion disputes.
- The Tribunal disposed of all OAs with directions to be scrupulously observed and no costs.
- MA Nos. 302/2013 and 303/2013 in OA Nos. 128/2013 and 129/2013 for production of documents were also disposed of.

---