Inter-se seniority in public service is determined by the statutory merit order of the recruitment examination, not the date of joining. Moreover, challenges to long-settled seniority lists are barred by the principle of delay and laches when no sufficient justification for the inaction is provided.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Seniority - Determination of inter-se seniority - Whether seniority is governed by date of appointment or merit in competitive examination - Rule 4(c) of the state service rules mandates that inter-se seniority is determined by the order of merit as reflected in the result of the competitive examination, rather than the date on which a candidate is appointed. (Para 6, 14)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Challenge to settled seniority list - Where seniority was fixed years prior and the petitioner failed to provide an explanation for the significant delay in approaching the court, the challenge is unsustainable. (Para 6, 15)

(C) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope of interference - Intra-court appeal is limited to examining whether the lower court’s judgment is palpably perverse or suffers from an error apparent in law; it is not a forum to substitute an alternative view. (Para 16)

Facts of the case:
Two candidates participated in the same recruitment process for a civil service post. A combined merit list was prepared by the examining body. One candidate was initially excluded but eventually appointed following an order by the court. The appellant was appointed later. Subsequently, a seniority list was published placing the candidate who ranked higher in the merit list above the appellant. The appellant challenged this seniority list and the order of appointment after several years of delay, arguing that as he had joined service earlier, he should be treated as senior.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the relevant rules specify that seniority must be determined based on the order of merit from the competitive examination. Since the respondent ranked higher in the merit list, the seniority assignment was correct. Furthermore, the court held that the petition was barred by laches due to the unexplained delay in challenging the settled seniority position.

Issues: The main issues were whether inter-se seniority is determined by the order of merit in the selection process or the sequence of appointment, and whether a challenge to a long-settled seniority list is maintainable after years of delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Seniority in public service is governed by statutory provisions linked to the merit rank achieved in the selection examination, and independent of the physical date of joining. Furthermore, administrative actions regarding seniority that have remained unchallenged for an extended period should not be reopened, as the doctrine of delay and laches serves to maintain stability and certainty in service records.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual history of recruitment, appointments, and seniority disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 12 , 13)
2. parties' contentions regarding recruitment eligibility and applicability of precedents. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. distinguishing prior supreme court precedents from the present case facts. (Para 6 , 11)
4. seniority is determined by merit position, not date of appointment. (Para 14)
5. application of the doctrine of delay and laches in seniority disputes. (Para 15 , 16)
6. dismissal of the writ appeal regarding administrative appointments. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT :

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

The present writ appeal challenges the impugned judgment dated 27.06.2022 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 10 of 2020.

2. The appellant had preferred the writ petition assailing the offer of appointment dated 10.05.2016 made to the respondent No. 4 and the appointment order dated 25.06.2016 appointing the respondent no.4 as Deputy Superintendent of Police.

3. The appellant further prayed for setting aside notification no. 106/Gen/DOP dated 02.08.2016 by which the respondent no.4 had been placed at serial no.69 while he was placed at serial no.70 in the inter-se seniority list. The appellant prayed that necessary corrections be made in the Office Order dated 03.09.2019, by which the appellant and the respondent no.4 were promoted to the posts of Additional Superintendent of Police by placing the respondent no.4 at serial no.1 instead of the appellant. The appellant further prayed that the respondents be refrained from taking steps on the Office4 Order dated 03.09.2019 and a fresh seniority list be published with necessary rectification.

4. The relevant facts necessary for deciding the present writ appeal are: on 12.09.2012, the respondent no.2 - the Sikkim Public Service Commission (for short, the SPSC), issued an advertisement for filling up 25 posts of Under Secretaries and equivalent, in the Junior Grade of the Sikkim State Civil Service (for short, the SSCS). On 27.11.2012, by an addendum thereto, two posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police were also included. There was no mention of either a panel list or waiting list. The appellant as well as the respondent no.4 along with other candidates appeared for the preliminary examination conducted by the SPSC on 20.07.2014 and the main examinations from 23.02.2015 to 26.02.2015. A combined merit list was prepared thereafter on the marks obtained in the written examination and viva-voce for the posts of Under Secretary as well as Deputy Superintendent of Police for the year 2015. In the merit list, one Barbara Lama with total marks of 475 featured just before the respondent no.4 whose total marks was 474. The appellant with 467 marks was 7(seven) places below the respondent no.4. The SPSC published the names of selected candidates vide notice dated 09.06.2015. For the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ms Barbara Lama, was selected in the unreserved category while the appellant was selected in the reserved category of Bhutia/Lepcha (for short, BL) as per the reservation policy. The notice dated 09.06.2015 issued to the candidates who were recommended for appointment specified that their candidature was provisional subject to police verification, medical fitness and verification of all required documents by the State Government. Barbara Lama, however, was not appointed to the post on the ground that she was not entitled to the Certificate of Identification. The appellant upon receipt of his appointment vide Office Order dated 09.11.2015 joined training at the North Eastern Police Academy, Meghalaya from January 2016. His appointment vide Office Order dated 09.11.2025 stated that his inter-se seniority would be maintained as per the order of merit declared by the SPSC vide its notice no. 93/SPSC/2015 dated 09.06.2015. According to the appellant, he later came to learn of the appointment of the respondent No.4 in the post of Deputy Superintend