The court ruled that seniority once settled should not be disturbed, and delay in seeking relief can result in denial of such relief.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

1. The petitioner is a Judicial officer holding the post of a District Judge, but currently working as Officer on Special Duty (Judicial) to his Excellency the Governor of Jharkhand.

2. In this Writ petition the petitioner challenges Memo No. 3489/Apptt. dt. 18.09.2019 (Annexure-10) rejecting the representation of the petitioner contained in his letter dated 18/20.06.2016 for restoration of his seniority position in the seniority list.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Judicial Magistrate in the State of Jharkhand on 29.05.2002. He was granted his first A.C.P. with effect from 28.05.2007 and second ACP with effect from 29.05.2012 in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

4. He was later posted as Judicial Magistrate-cum-Judge In-charge in Civil Court, Pakur on 07.10.2015.

5. At that time he was communicated with an adverse entry for the assessment year 2014-15 vide a letter dt. 31.08.2015 (Annexure-1) issued under the signature of the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court of Jharkhand for the period he had worked as judicial Magistrate-cum-Judge In- charge, Civil Court, Deoghar. The said communication mentioned that the petitioner may file a representation for expunction of the adverse entry within two months from the date of receipt of the said letter.

6. The petitioner gave representation on 26.11.2015 (Annexure-2) for expunging the adverse entry which was accepted on 10.02.2016 (Annexure-3) and the adverse entry in the ACR was expunged.

7. In the seniority list of Judicial Officers of Jharkhand dt. 01.08.2015 (Annexure-4), position of the petitioner was at serial no. 243.

8. Cases of promotion of some Judicial Officers to the post of Civil, Judge (Senior Division) were taken up in 2015, but, on account of absence of vigilance clearance in respect of 07 judicial officers including the petitioner, their cases allegedly were not considered.

9. Petitioner contends that without there being any communication of any order of punishment or issuance of show-cause etc., seniority position of the petitioner and 6 other Judicial Officers, for whom vigilance clearance was not obtained, was pushed down in the seniority list published on 03.09.2015. The name of the petitioner, which was at serial no. 243 of the seniority list dt. 01.08.2015, was pushed down to serial no.254 in the seniority list dt. 03.09.2015. (Annexure-5).

10. After the adverse entry in the ACR of the petitioner for 2014-15 was expunged by the High Court, vigilance clearance was granted and the petitioner was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 20.04.2016 (Annexure-6).

Contentions of petitioner

11. Petitioner contends that after grant of promotion pursuant to expunction of adverse remarks, the natural corollary would be restoration of seniority position of the petitioner in the seniority list but this was not done. The petitioner contends that no show cause/explanation was ever called for from the petitioner in the matter of downgrading his seniority position in the civil/seniority list at any point of time.

12. According to the petitioner, the seniority of two other officers, who were similarly placed like him, by name Sri Niraj Kumar Vishwakarma and Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh, which was also lowered as was done in the case of the petitioner and who had been given promotion to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division), was restored to their original position, but the petitioner was discriminated against and he was placed in the seniority list dt. 03.12.2019 (Annexure-7) at serial no.185.

13. Petitioner contends that he ought to be placed at serial no. 168A, i.e., above serial no.169 wherein the name of his junior Sri Vishal Srivastava finds mentioned, since Vishal Srivastava was at serial no. 244 of the seniority list of Civil Judge (Junior Division) dt. 01.08.2015 while the petitioner was at serial no. 243.

14. Petitioner contends that he was also promoted as District Judge, on 18.07.2019 (Annexure-8), but, according to t