Supreme Court Directs Appellants Be Placed Senior To Judicial Officers Appointed on July 10, 2012

A bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih heard an appeal by two candidates who were selected in the 2003 recruitment for Civil Judge (Junior Division) challenging orders of the High Court of Chhattisgarh that had limited their seniority to the date of appointment. The appeal arose from the Division Bench's affirmation of a Single Judge's order rejecting the appellants' claim to seniority over candidates appointed in subsequent batches and from a Registrar General's refusal to revise the cadre seniority.

The Court partly allowed the appeal and directed that the appellants be shown senior to the Judicial Officers who were appointed on 10th July 2012. The Court noted that it would not reopen the merits of the High Court's selection order which had attained finality, but confined itself to the date from which the appellants' seniority should be reckoned. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “We are of the considered opinion that the right to be appointed accrued to the appellants on the date of the order of the High Court i.e. on 2nd May 2012. The period between the date of the order of the High Court and the appointment of the batch of 2012 is more than 2 months. During the said period, the respondent-State could very well have fulfilled the necessary formalities like police verification, etc., and issued an order of appointment to the appellants. We are, therefore, 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.” The Court relied on the principle that delay by the appointing authority in implementing a final direction could not be allowed to prejudice the rights accrued on the date of the order.

Background The dispute arose from Advertisement No.01/2003 by the Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission for recruitment to Civil Judge (Class-II). The appellants participated in the 2003 process, secured higher marks but were placed on a supplementary/waiting list while two women candidates were selected under reservation. They challenged the selection in Writ Petition No.1827 of 2004. On 2nd May 2012 the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court allowed that writ petition and directed appointment of the petitioners “subject to fulfillment of necessary formalities like police verification etc. against the available vacancies for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The seniority of the petitioners will, however, be reckoned from the date of their appointment.” That direction attained finality after this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 30th November 2012.

The appellants were appointed on 8th July 2013 and later confirmed. Candidates from the 2012 batch had been appointed on 10th July 2012. The appellants sought seniority over those appointed earlier; the Registrar General rejected the claim on 24th June 2016 relying on the High Court's direction that seniority would be from date of appointment. Applications for clarification and subsequent writ petitions and appeals in the High Court were dismissed. The appellants thus approached this Court by special leave.

Before this Court, counsel for the appellants submitted that seniority should flow from selection in 2003 or at least accrue from the date of the High Court's 2012 order; the State contended that the earlier decree fixed seniority from the date of appointment and that that order had attained finality following dismissal of the SLP. The Supreme Court did not reopen the correctness of the 2012 selection order but held that the right to be appointed accrued on 2nd May 2012 and that undue delay by the State in implementing the order should not prejudice the appellants. The Court referred to the precedent Pilla Sitaram Patrudu v. Union of India (1996) and, in consequence, partly allowed the appeal by directing that the appellants be shown senior to Judicial Officers appointed on 10th July 2012. The Court made no order as to costs.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. _OF 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. of 2025) (D.NO.23536 OF 2020) Case Title: PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL & ANR. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri B.S. Rajesh Agrajit, learned Deputy Advocate General (for Respondent No.1); Shri Harsh Pathak, learned counsel (for Respondent No.2); Shri Apoorv Kurup, learned Senior Counsel (for Respondent No.3)