Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, J.
Parmeshwar Singh S/o Idan Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5970 of 2024
Decided on : 15-04-2024
SENIORITY - PROMOTION - The court addressed the issue of seniority determination for promotion, emphasizing that it should be based on merit rather than joining date. The court found that the petitioners' objections to the seniority list were not considered, which is a violation of due process. The court directed the respondents to address the pending objections and issue a final seniority list accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the seniority list dated 31.07.2023 for promotion to UDC/Senior Assistant, claiming it was based on joining date instead of merit. They had previously submitted objections to a provisional list prepared on 01.07.2020, which were ignored.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the petitioners' objections were not considered before finalizing the seniority list, indicating a lack of due process. The court emphasized the need for the respondents to address these objections.
Issues: Whether the final seniority list was prepared in accordance with the principles of merit and whether the petitioners' objections were duly considered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that seniority for promotion must be determined based on merit, and failure to consider objections raised by affected parties constitutes a violation of procedural fairness.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the respondents to pass formal administrative orders on the pending objections and to issue a final seniority list accordingly.
ORDER :
ARUN MONGA, J.
1. Grievance of the petitioners herein stems out of the seniority list dated 31.07.2023 (Annex.4) issued by the respondents for promotion on the post of UDC/Senior Assistant. They allege that seniority was determined as per the joining date instead of merit, which is not permissible. The petitioners state that they even filed objections but the same were not considered by the respondents.
2. Relevant facts of the case are that on 01.07.2020, a provisional seniority list was prepared as per the merit. However, final seniority list dated 31.07.2023 (Annex.3) has been issued by the respondents as per the joining date of candidates. The petitioners raised objections, which have not been considered by the respondent authorities. Hence this petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the case file.
4. It so appears that petitioners herein had indeed submitted their objections to the proposed seniority list. But without passing any orders on the same or without according any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, final seniority list has been prepared.
5. At this stage, in view of the aforesaid observations made by this Court, learned counsel for the respondents submits that at this stage formal administrative orders will be passed in accordance with law on the pending objections of the petitioners qua the seniority list.
6. In the premise, the writ petition is disposed of with the expectation that the aforesaid administrative order shall be passed as expeditiously as possible.
7. The respondents are at liberty to issue final seniority list subject to the such corrections, if any, after passing of the fresh administrative orders on the pending representation/objection of the petitioners.
8. Petitioners are at liberty to file a supplementary representation in case so advised.
Seniority for promotion must be determined based on merit, and due process requires that objections to seniority lists be considered before finalization.
The court established that objections against provisional seniority lists must be considered prior to finalization, affirming principles of fairness and the inapplicability of ad hoc promotions for s....
Employment and Service matter - Re-assessment of seniority - As per Rule 3(1)(b), seniority of teachers in a grade has to be determined on basis of their substantive appointment in that grade, meanin....
The main legal principle established is the court's authority to direct the government to take a decision in finalizing a provisional seniority list to facilitate promotions.
The court held that settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a long period, emphasizing the principle of res judicata and the limits of administrative power in altering promotion dates.
The tribunal erred in determining seniority by not considering the promotion dates of the petitioner and respondent, leading to an incorrect placement in the seniority list.
The principle of natural justice mandates giving an opportunity of hearing before passing an adverse order. Violation of this principle can lead to the setting aside of the order.
The court established that seniority must be determined by the date of first appointment, and settled seniority cannot be revised after a significant delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
