Date of the Judgment: April 23, 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Augustine George Masih, J.
Can a delay in appointment by the State Government affect the seniority of selected candidates? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in a recent case concerning the seniority of Civil Judges in Chhattisgarh. The court clarified that delays caused by the State should not prejudice the rights of candidates who were rightfully selected, thereby settling a dispute over seniority among judicial officers.
The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on April 23, 2025, addressed a dispute regarding the seniority of Civil Judges in the State of Chhattisgarh. The bench comprised Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.
Case Background
The case originated from a recruitment process initiated in 2003 by the Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission for the post of Civil Judge, Class-II. Pawan Kumar Agrawal and another candidate (referred to as “the appellants”) participated in the examination and interview. Despite securing higher marks than some women candidates, they were placed on the supplementary select list/waiting list.
Aggrieved, the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 1827 of 2004 before the High Court, challenging the selection process, arguing that the reservation quota for women had been exceeded, violating Rule 6-A of the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, and Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India.
On May 2, 2012, the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the appointment of the appellants against available vacancies, subject to the completion of formalities like police verification. The High Court also stipulated that the seniority of the appellants would be reckoned from the date of their appointment.
The appellants were subsequently appointed on July 8, 2013, and confirmed on December 4, 2015. However, they were placed below candidates selected in 2006, 2008, and 2012, leading them to file a representation before the Registrar General of the Chhattisgarh High Court, claiming seniority over candidates from prior to the 2006 batch.
Their representation was rejected on June 24, 2016, by the Registrar General, who cited the High Court’s order in Writ Petition No. 1827 of 2004, which stated that seniority would be determined from the date of appointment. This led the appellants to file MCC No. 681 of 2016, seeking clarification of the order dated May 2, 2012. The High Court dismissed this application on September 28, 2016, stating that the order required no clarification.
The appellants then filed Writ Petition No. 3620 of 2019, seeking to quash the Registrar General’s letter dated June 24, 2016. The learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected this petition on May 13, 2019, affirming that the Division Bench’s order dated May 2, 2012, had attained finality. A subsequent Writ Appeal No. 341 of 2019 was also dismissed by the Division Bench on July 30, 2019, leading the appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 2, 2003 | Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission issued Advertisement No.01/2003/Exam for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge, Class -II. |
| 2003 | Appellants submitted applications and participated in the examination and interview. |
| 2004 | Appellants filed Writ Petition No.1827 of 2004 before the High Court challenging the selection process. |
| May 2, 2012 | The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the appointment of the appellants. |
| July 8, 2013 | Appellants were appointed. |
| December 4, 2015 | Appellants were confirmed. |
| June 24, 2016 | The representation of the appellants was rejected by the Registrar General of the High Court. |
| September 28, 2016 | The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the application for clarification of the order dated May 2, 2012. |
| May 13, 2019 | The learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected the writ petition of the appellants. |
| July 30, 2019 | The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal. |
| April 23, 2025 | Supreme Court delivered judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The course of proceedings in this case involved multiple stages of litigation before reaching the Supreme Court. Initially, the appellants, feeling aggrieved by their placement in the supplementary select list despite securing good marks in the 2003 recruitment process, approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh by filing Writ Petition No. 1827 of 2004.
The High Court, on May 2, 2012, ruled in favor of the appellants, directing the State to appoint them against existing vacancies, while clarifying that their seniority would be counted from the date of appointment. Subsequently, when the appellants found themselves placed below candidates selected in later recruitment drives (2006, 2008, and 2012), they sought a correction in their seniority. Their representation to the Registrar General of the High Court was rejected, leading them to file MCC No. 681 of 2016, seeking clarification of the 2012 order. This application was dismissed.
The appellants then filed Writ Petition No. 3620 of 2019, challenging the Registrar General’s decision. The Single Judge dismissed this petition, and a subsequent Writ Appeal No. 341 of 2019 was also dismissed by the Division Bench, which maintained that the 2012 order stood and could not be revisited. Finally, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking a resolution to their seniority dispute.
Legal Framework
The legal framework relevant to this case includes the following:
- Rule 6-A of the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994: This rule pertains to the reservation quota for women in the recruitment of Civil Judges. The appellants argued that the selection under the reserved quota for women exceeded the prescribed limit under this rule.
- Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India: This article allows the State to make special provisions for women and children. The appellants contended that the reservation for women in this case was implemented in a manner that violated this constitutional provision.
- Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961: This set of rules governs the conditions of service for civil servants in Chhattisgarh, including the determination of seniority for direct recruits based on the order of merit, irrespective of the date of appointment.
The interplay of these legal provisions formed the basis of the dispute, with the appellants arguing that their seniority should be determined by their merit in the 2003 selection process, as per the 1961 Rules, rather than their date of appointment, as per the High Court’s 2012 order.
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellants:
- Seniority Based on Selection Process: The appellants argued that having been selected in the 2003 selection process, they should be granted seniority over all candidates selected in subsequent selection processes in 2006, 2008, and 2012.
- Entitlement to Seniority: At the very least, the appellants claimed entitlement to seniority over candidates appointed after the High Court’s order on May 2, 2012. They contended that they should have been placed above the batch appointed on July 10, 2012.
The innovativeness of the argument by the appellants lies in their attempt to reconcile the general rule of seniority based on merit (as per the 1961 Rules) with the specific direction of the High Court to reckon seniority from the date of appointment. They argued that the delay in their appointment should not prejudice their right to seniority based on the original selection process.
Arguments by the Respondents:
- Clarity of High Court Order: The respondents argued that the High Court’s order dated May 2, 2012, was clear in stating that the seniority of the appellants was to be reckoned from the date of their appointment.
- Finality of the Order: The respondents submitted that the High Court’s order had attained finality, as the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against it was rejected by the Supreme Court on November 30, 2012.
- Appointment Date: The respondents pointed out that although the High Court’s order was passed on May 2, 2012, the appellants were appointed on July 8, 2013, after the dismissal of the SLP. In the meantime, the 2012 batch was appointed on July 10, 2012. Therefore, the appellants’ seniority was rightly considered from the date of their appointment, i.e., July 8, 2013.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (Respondents) |
|---|---|---|
| Seniority Based on Selection Process |
✓ Appellants were selected in the 2003 selection process. ✓ They should be granted seniority over candidates selected in subsequent processes (2006, 2008, 2012). |
– |
| Entitlement to Seniority |
✓ Appellants are entitled to seniority over candidates appointed after the High Court’s order on May 2, 2012. ✓ They should be placed above the batch appointed on July 10, 2012. |
– |
| Clarity of High Court Order | – | ✓ The High Court’s order dated May 2, 2012, clearly states that seniority is reckoned from the date of appointment. |
| Finality of the Order | – | ✓ The High Court’s order has attained finality as the SLP was rejected by the Supreme Court on November 30, 2012. |
| Appointment Date | – |
✓ Appellants were appointed on July 8, 2013, after the dismissal of the SLP. ✓ The 2012 batch was appointed on July 10, 2012. ✓ Seniority is rightly considered from the date of appointment, i.e., July 8, 2013. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- From which date the appellants could be entitled to seniority in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division)?
- Whether the appellants would be entitled to seniority over the batch of Judicial Officers who were appointed on 10th July 2012?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| From which date the appellants could be entitled to seniority in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division)? | The Court held that the appellants were not entitled to seniority over those candidates who were appointed prior to the date of the High Court’s order, i.e., May 2, 2012. |
| Whether the appellants would be entitled to seniority over the batch of Judicial Officers who were appointed on 10th July 2012? | The Court held that the appellants were entitled to seniority over the batch of Judicial Officers who were appointed on July 10, 2012, because the delay in giving effect to the order of the High Court dated May 2, 2012, by the State Government should not be permitted to act to the prejudice of the appellants. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
- Pilla Sitaram Patrudu and others v. Union of India and others, (1996) 8 SCC 637: The court referred to this case to support its opinion that the delay in giving effect to the order of the High Court by the State Government should not prejudice the appellants.
Authority Consideration Table
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Pilla Sitaram Patrudu and others v. Union of India and others, (1996) 8 SCC 637 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to in support of the opinion that delay by the State Government should not prejudice the appellants. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | How the Court Treated It |
|---|---|
| Appellants should be granted seniority over all candidates selected in subsequent selection processes. | The Court did not find merit in this claim with regard to candidates appointed prior to the date of the High Court order i.e. 2nd May 2012. |
| Appellants were entitled to seniority over the candidates who were appointed after the order of the Division Bench of the High court dated 2nd May 2012 and ought to have at least been placed above the batch appointed on 10th July 2012. | The Court agreed with this submission and directed that the appellants be shown senior to the Judicial Officers who were appointed on 10th July 2012. |
| The order of the High Court dated 2nd May 2012 is clear and as per the said order, the seniority of the appellants was to be reckoned from the date of their appointment. | The Court acknowledged the clarity of the order but also considered the delay in appointment and its impact on the appellants’ seniority. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Pilla Sitaram Patrudu and others v. Union of India and others, (1996) 8 SCC 637: The Court referred to this case to support its opinion that the delay in giving effect to the order of the High Court by the State Government should not prejudice the appellants.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that the delay on the part of the State Government in implementing the High Court’s order should not unfairly prejudice the appellants. The Court emphasized that the right to be appointed had accrued to the appellants on the date of the High Court’s order, and the State could have completed the necessary formalities within a reasonable time.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Delay by the State Government | 40% |
| Right to be appointed accrued on the date of the High Court’s order | 30% |
| Prejudice to the appellants | 30% |
Fact:Law
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 60% |
| Law (Legal considerations) | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the right to be appointed accrued to the appellants on May 2, 2012, the date of the High Court’s order. The delay in giving effect to this order by the State Government should not prejudice the appellants, and therefore, they should be placed senior to the 2012 batch.
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, directing that in the seniority list, the appellants be shown senior to the Judicial Officers who were appointed on 10th July 2012.
“The seniority of the petitioners will, however, be reckoned from the date of their appointment.”
“We are of the considered opinion that the delay in giving effect to the order of the High Court dated 2nd May 2012 by the State Government should not be permitted to act to the prejudice of the appellants.”
“It is directed that in the seniority list, the appellants be shown senior to the Judicial Officers who were appointed on 10th July 2012.”
Key Takeaways
- Timely Implementation: State Governments must ensure timely implementation of court orders to avoid prejudice to selected candidates.
- Accrued Rights: The right to be appointed accrues on the date of the court order directing appointment.
- Seniority Protection: Delays caused by the State should not adversely affect the seniority of rightfully selected candidates.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that in the seniority list, the appellants be shown senior to the Judicial Officers who were appointed on 10th July 2012.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that delays caused by the State in implementing court orders should not prejudice the rights of selected candidates, particularly with respect to seniority. This clarifies that the right to be appointed accrues on the date of the court order, and any subsequent delays should not disadvantage the candidates.
Conclusion
In summary, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, directing that the appellants be placed senior to the Judicial Officers appointed on July 10, 2012, emphasizing that delays by the State in implementing court orders should not prejudice the rights of selected candidates.