1. Appeal against modification of interim order in seniority and promotion dispute for Informatics Assistant post. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 566
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, JJ.
Deepti Chinaria D/o Shri Vinod Kumar Chinaria – Appellant
Versus
Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited – Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 205 of 2026
Decided On : 10-03-2026
Important Points
In service disputes over seniority, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, courts may direct provisional consideration of an employee's candidature at a contested higher rank, keeping results in a sealed cover pending final adjudication.
Subject
Service Law - Seniority and Promotion
Headnote
(A) Service Law - Seniority - Modification of Seniority List - Re-review DPC - Promotional exercise during pendency of litigation - To avoid multiplicity of proceedings and prevent prejudice to the employee, the employee's candidature should be provisionally considered based on the earlier seniority position, and the results kept in a sealed cover pending final adjudication of the writ petition. (Paras 7 and 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was promoted to a post and initially placed at serial number 8 in the seniority list based on a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) recommendation. Following a re-review DPC, the appellant's position was modified to serial number 104, which caused prejudice. An interim order had previously protected the promotion and restrained the respondents from acting upon the provisional seniority list. A subsequent order modified this interim relief, allowing the respondent to operate the provisional seniority list for other employees while excluding the appellant. The appellant contended that permitting the respondent to operate the list in this manner would prejudice their case during the pending adjudication of the writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the transition from serial number 8 to serial number 104 in the seniority list following a re-review DPC caused prejudice to the appellant. It further found that if the respondents were permitted to undertake promotional exercises while excluding the appellant before final adjudication, it would lead to a multiplicity of proceedings.
Issues: Whether the operation of a promotional seniority list that excludes the appellant or assigns a lower rank during the pendency of a writ petition would prejudice the appellant and lead to further litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: To ensure a simplified final adjudication and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the court held that in the event of a promotional exercise, the appellant's candidature should be provisionally considered by treating them at the higher seniority rank. To balance interests, the result of such consideration must be kept in a sealed cover, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition, and such participation shall not create any right or equity in favor of the employee.
Result: Appeal disposed of by modifying the impugned order and the interim order, directing that the appellant's candidature be provisionally considered at serial number 8 with the result kept in a sealed cover.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was promoted to a post and initially placed at serial number 8 in the seniority list based on a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) recommendation. Following a re-review DPC, the appellant's position was modified to serial number 104, which caused prejudice. An interim order had previously protected the promotion and restrained the respondents from acting upon the provisional seniority list. A subsequent order modified this interim relief, allowing the respondent to operate the provisional seniority list for other employees while excluding the appellant. The appellant contended that permitting the respondent to operate the list in this manner would prejudice their case during the pending adjudication of the writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the transition from serial number 8 to serial number 104 in the seniority list following a re-review DPC caused prejudice to the appellant. It further found that if the respondents were permitted to undertake promotional exercises while excluding the appellant before final adjudication, it would lead to a multiplicity of proceedings.
Issues: Whether the operation of a promotional seniority list that excludes the appellant or assigns a lower rank during the pendency of a writ petition would prejudice the appellant and lead to further litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: To ensure a simplified final adjudication and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the court held that in the event of a promotional exercise, the appellant's candidature should be provisionally considered by treating them at the higher seniority rank. To balance interests, the result of such consideration must be kept in a sealed cover, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition, and such participation shall not create any right or equity in favor of the employee.
Result: Appeal disposed of by modifying the impugned order and the interim order, directing that the appellant's candidature be provisionally considered at serial number 8 with the result kept in a sealed cover.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ashish Kishore Saksena
For the Respondents: S. Roy, Abhishek Sharma
For the Appellant : Ashish Kishore Saksena
For the Respondents: S. Roy, Abhishek Sharma
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argues operation of provisional seniority list would prejudice her case despite interim protection; respondents bound by court orders. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Re-review DPC placed appellant at Serial No. 104 from 8, causing prejudice; permitting promotional exercise excluding appellant may cause multiplicity. (Para 7 )
4. Pending final adjudication, provisional consideration of candidate at original seniority position with result in sealed cover is warranted. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal disposed by modifying orders; direct provisional consideration at Serial No. 8 with result in sealed cover pending writ outcome. (Para 8 )
6. What is the correct course when a seniority list is disputed and interim protection exists?
Pending final adjudication, the court may direct provisional consideration of the appellant at her original seniority position with the result kept in a sealed cover. (Para 8 )
7. Should the operation of a provisional seniority list be stayed if it prejudices a protected party?
If the list alters the appellant's position from 8 to 104, permitting its operation excluding only the appellant may still cause prejudice and multiplicity of proceedings. (Para 7 , 8 )
JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.2.2026 whereby the Hon’ble Single Judge while allowing the application filed by the respondent no.5, modified the interim order dated 17.7.2023.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant makes a limited submission that the appellant is working on the post of Informatics Assistant since the date of her promotion on the same post w.e.f. 25.04.2018 against the vacancy of the year 2018-19 in pursuance of the DPC held on 25.04.2018. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the first seniority list was prepared for the post of Informatics Assistant in which the appellant was kept at serial No.8. However, subsequently on account of filing of several representations, the seniority list was amended on the basis of recommendation of re-review DPC for the vacancy of the year 2018-19. It is submitted that the recommendation of the re-review DPC caused prejudice to the present appellant as she has been moved down at S.No.104 from S.No.8 in the seniority, which was also the provisional seniority list. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was an interim order operating in her favour granted by this Court on 17.07.2023, whereby the Hon’ble Single Bench had upheld the promotion of the appellant to the post of Informatics Assistant pursuant to recommendation of DPC dated 25.04.2018 and the respondents were restrained from acting upon the provisional seniority list dated 30.6.2023
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that impugned order has been passed by the Court on the application filed by the respondent no.5 seeking modification. However, while passing the order impugned, it was clarified that the interim stay order dated 17.7.2023 shall apply and operate only in respect of the appellant, but the AVVNL was granted liberty to proceed further with the provisional senioirty list dated 30.6.2023 in respect of all other employees, excluding the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the interim order was granted protecting the appellant’s right, then by no means of law, the subsequent provisional promotional seniority list dated 30.06.2023 ought to have operated as it would automatically mean that the appellant’s candidature would either be excluded or would be treated at Serial No.104.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the lis is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Single Bench, however, if the AVVNL is permitted to operate the seniority list dated 30.6.2023, then the petitioner’s case is likely to be prejudiced.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the seniority list of 30.06.2023 has been permitted to be operated while excluding the case of the appellant and thus they are bound by the orders passed by this Court.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciation of the rival contentions, this Court finds that initially appellant was placed at Serial No. 8 in the earlier seniority list issued by the respondent-AVVNL on 01.04.2019, which was prepared pursuant to the recommendation of the DPC held on 25.04.2018. In the review DPC, the petitioner’s position at Serial No. 8 was maintained, however, in the re-review DPC dated 16.06.2023, the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 104 in the seniority list, which caused prejudice to the appellant. This Court further finds that if without final adjudication, the respondents are permitted to undertake promotional exercise, excluding the appellant, then too, there shall be multiplicity of the proceedings.
8. Therefore, in order to enable the process of final adjudication before the Hon’ble Single Bench and to simplify the issue, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present appeal by modifying the impugned order dated 27.2.2026 and the interim order dated 17.7.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench by directing the respondent AVVNL th
