Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, JJ.
Suresh Kumar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh Shimla through its Registrar General and Ors. - Respondents
CWP No.6932 of 2021
Decided on : 03-03-2025
(A) Himachal Pradesh High Court Officers and Members of Staff (Recruitment, Promotion, Condition of Service) Conduct and Appeal Rules, 2015 - Seniority determination - Petitioners challenged the Grievance Committee's decision altering their seniority based on roster points instead of appointment dates - Court emphasized that seniority must be determined by the date of first appointment as per Rule 9(A) - The impugned decision was found to violate statutory rules. (Paras 4, 20, 25, 34)
(B) Seniority - The principle that seniority should be determined by the date of first appointment rather than roster points was reaffirmed, highlighting the importance of adherence to statutory rules in determining seniority. (Paras 20, 25)
(C) Delay in challenging seniority - The court ruled that the challenge to the seniority list was not barred by delay as there was no crystallization of third-party rights prior to the representations made by the private respondents. (Paras 22, 25)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, appointed as Clerks in the District Judiciary, sought to restore their seniority as per the final seniority list dated 31.07.2017 after the Grievance Committee allowed representations from private respondents who were appointed later.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Grievance Committee's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of seniority rules, and the petitioners' seniority should be determined by their appointment dates.
Issues: The main issues included whether the seniority should be determined by the roster or the date of first appointment, and whether the challenge to the seniority list was barred by delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that seniority must be determined by the date of first appointment as per the applicable rules, rejecting the roster-based seniority assigned by the Grievance Committee.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following substantive reliefs:-
i. That the appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued and the decision (Annexure P10) dated 01.09.2021 may very kindly be quashed and set aside with further direction to respondent No.1 to restore the seniority position of the petitioners as was finalized vide seniority list (Annexure P3) as it stood on 31.07.2017, in the interest of law and justice.
ii. That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to assign the seniority to the petitioners by following the roster strictly in consonance to the decision as reflected in their appointment letters, in the interest of law and justice.
2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.
3. Admittedly the petitioners were appointed as Clerks in the District Judiciary of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner No.1 joined as a Clerk in the District Judiciary on 26.06.2007. Petitioner No.2 joined as a Clerk in the District Judiciary on 06.09.2004. Petitioner No.3 joined as a Clerk in the District Judiciary on 23.10.2007.
4. As per the Himachal Pradesh High Court Officers and Members of Staff (Recruitment, Promotion, Condition of Service) Conduct and Appeal Rules, 2015, 90% posts of the Senior Assistants in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh are to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst Clerks serving in High Court, which includes Junior Assistants, Proof Readers/Junior Office Assistants(IT Regular).
5. The balance 10% posts of Senior Assistants in the High Court are to be filled by way of a Limited Competitive Examination from amongst Clerks, which includes Junior Assistants and equivalent posts including Junior Office Assistant(IT Regular) of the Subordinate Courts in Himachal Pradesh.
6. In order to be eligible to apply under the aforesaid 10% quota, a person is required to have a Graduation Degree and apart from the same, is required to have 8 years of service as a Clerk.
7. Posts of Senior Assistants, to be filled in from the 10% quota (Limited Competitive Examination), were advertised on 25/26.08.2015 (Annexure R1/A). In the said process petitioners No.1 and 2 had participated. The process of recruitment was concluded on 02.03.2016. Vide office order dated 02/03.03.2016 (Annexure P1), petitioners No.1 and 2 were offered appointment of Senior Assistant in the High Court under the 10% Quota (Limited Competitive Examination).
8. Insofar as, petitioner No.3 is concerned, the process of selection to the 10% quota of Senior Assistant in the High Court through Limited Competitive Examination commenced on 27.09.2016 (Annexure R1/B). The same was concluded on 15.05.2017. Vide office order dated 15.05.2017 (Annexure P2), petitioner No.3 was offered appointment to the post of Senior Assistant in the High Court.
9. A final seniority list of the officers/officials of the High Court on 31.07.2017 was circulated, which is appended along with the present petition as Annexure P3. In the said seniority list, the petitioners were shown to be senior to the private respondents.
10. The private respondents i.e. respondents No.2, 3, 4 & 5 were appointed on 12.08.2015, 17.09.2015 and 01.01.2017 as Senior Assistants, respectively. Feeling aggrieved by the seniority assigned to them in the final seniority list dated 31.07.2017 (Annexure P-3), representations were preferred by the private respondents, the same are appended along with present petition as Annexures P-4 to P-7. The same were made in the Month of June 2021. The aforesaid representations so made were forwarded to the petitioners vide letter dated 13.08.2021, which is appended along with the present petition as Annexure P-8. In pursuance thereto, a detailed reply was filed on behalf of the petitioners to the representations so made. Reply filed by petitioners is appended with petition as per Annexure P-9.
11. The Grievance Committee for the Staff of the Hig
Seniority in public service must be determined by the date of first appointment, not by roster points, as per statutory rules.
Seniority in service is a statutory right determined by established merit lists, with waiting list candidates lacking rights to precedence over those appointed from the main list.
Seniority assigned to any employee could not be changed after a lapse of 7 years, though even on merit it was found that seniority of the petitioner therein had correctly been fixed.
Service Laws – Seniority List – OMs made it clear that seniority of direct recruits had to be fixed from the date of appointment and not from date of initiation of recruitment process.
Seniority in government service is determined by the date of appointment, not just the year joined in the cadre, protecting prior established seniority rights.
Seniority lists finalized under pre-overruling law (initiation of recruitment process and quota rotation) protected prospectively; ad hoc service does not confer seniority; repeated provisional lists....
Seniority cannot be granted to employees not borne in the cadre; it must reflect the actual date of joining. A fresh seniority list should be prepared following Supreme Court rulings.
Seniority in public service must follow the order of merit per category, prohibiting inter-category comparisons, and claims made after inordinate delay are unsustainable.
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
