Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N. PATHAK, J.
Binod Kumar Mahto – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 821 of 2020
Decided on : 09-02-2024
[SENIORITY] - [Jharkhand Police Service] - [Circular No. 15784, dated 26.08.1972] - [The court discussed the provisions of the Circular regarding seniority, emphasizing that if an officer is transferred on their own request, prior service is not counted for seniority. However, if the transfer is due to a government policy decision, prior service should be counted. The court concluded that the petitioners voluntarily opted to shift to the police service and thus could not claim seniority from their initial appointment date.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, initially appointed as Deputy Collectors on 12.08.2010, challenged the decision denying them seniority in the Jharkhand Police Service after they shifted to that cadre on 01.07.2012, following a government policy to fill vacant posts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' claim for seniority based on their initial appointment date was not sustainable as they voluntarily opted to shift to the police service, and their seniority should be counted from the date they joined the police service.
Issues: 1. Whether petitioners are entitled to seniority as per the Jharkhand Public Service Commission's seniority list? 2. Whether their seniority should be counted from their initial appointment date? 3. Applicability of Circular No. 15784 regarding inter-se seniority? 4. Should the respondents have considered their claim for seniority from the initial appointment date?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that seniority is determined by the date of entry into the cadre, and since the petitioners voluntarily opted to shift to the police service, they could not claim seniority from their previous service. The provisions of the Circular were not applicable as the petitioners' transfer was not mandated by a government policy but was a choice made by them.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming that the petitioners could not claim seniority from their initial appointment date as they voluntarily shifted to the police service.
JUDGMENT :
S.N. PATHAK, J.
Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr Manish Kumar, learned Sr. SC-III assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha appearing on behalf of the State.
PRAYER
2. The writ petitioners, who are posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, State of Jharkhand have thrown challenge to the decision as contained in Memo No. 3283, Dated 24.06.2019 [Annexure-20] whereby their prayer for placing them at appropriate places in seniority list, has been declined.
Petitioners have further prayed that their initial date of appointment be treated as 12.08.2010 instead of 01.07.2012 and further place them in appropriate place of seniority list prepared by the Department. Such prayer has been made only on the ground that initially they were appointed as Deputy Collectors on 12.08.2010 but later on, they were shifted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on 01.07.2012.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. According to petitioners, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission published Advertisement No. 11/2007 for Preliminary Examination to be held on 11.01.2008 for different posts of Jharkhand Administrative Service, Jharkhand Police Service and other allied services in the State of Jharkhand. The total posts advertised for Jharkhand Administrative Service was 173. Similarly, the total posts earmarked for Jharkhand Police Service was 45 only. The petitioners, being eligible for such appointment, applied and participated in the selection process. The Preliminary Test was held on 11.10.2008. The petitioners became successful in the written test, interview and hence according to their merit position obtained by them, they were appointed on the post of Deputy Collector (Jharkhand Administrative Service) on 12.08.2010. It is case of the petitioners that their first choice/ preference was for Jharkhand Police Service but still they were appointed as Deputy Collector. Later, it was found that six posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police remained vacant for the reason that the selected candidates were not found fit for appointment on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police/ Jharkhand Police Service, either medically or otherwise and as such a policy decision was taken by the Government to call for the candidates who were above in the merit list and had opted for the Jharkhand Police Service as their first choice. In view of the fact that these petitioners had opted for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police as first choice, option was given to altogether twenty candidates for shifting themselves from Jharkhand Administrative Service to the Jharkhand Police Service. These petitioners were amongst those twenty two candidates.
4. After the policy decision of the Government and option given to the petitioners, they accepted such offer and shifted from Jharkhand Administrative Service to the Jharkhand Police Service. Such shifting took place with effect from 01.07.2012. Petitioners have further pleaded that they ought to have been treated in service from 12.08.2010 and their seniority be counted according to the merit list of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and the same should have been treated for all purposes from 12.08.2010 i.e. their initial date of appointment. It is case of the petitioners that their position would have been above Manish Toppo, whose name appears at Serial No. 71 in the seniority list dated 01.01.2016, duly notified on 29.05.2020. The other seniority list which was notified on 04.01.2023, there also petitioners have been shown below Manish Toppo. The position of petitioners in this seniority list dated 29.05.2020 appears at Serial Nos. 87, 88 and 89 respectively.
5. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed their representation for placing them at appropriate place treating their initial date of appointment on 12.08.2010 but such requests of the petitioners were not acceded to and the same was rejected on 24.06.2019. Accordingly, claim of the petitioners to p
A person cannot claim retrospective seniority in a service from a date prior to joining that service, reflecting the principle that seniority is tied to actual induction into the cadre.
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 must be reckoned from the date of substantive appointment, as an employee cannot claim seniority for any period prior to their actual entry into the service or their induction into the cadr....
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 for government employees must be determined from the date of appointment, not the initiation of recruitment, as upheld in relevant Supreme Court decisions.
The seniority of employees should not be affected by resolutions resulting in loss of seniority, and compliance with specific rules regarding examinations should be considered based on the circumstan....
The court reaffirmed that temporary or ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority rights, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory rules for public service appointments.
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
