The court emphasized that seniority must be based on the actual date of appointment, and any changes made without due process violate principles of natural justice, leading to the quashing of the amended gradation list.

ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 17-11-2016 passed by respondent on.1, by which the respondents no. 4 and 5 have been given seniority over and above the petitioner, thereby amending the gradation list.

2. It is not out of place to mention here that the Petitioner was placed in the select list for the post of Dy. S.P. and was appointed by order dated 29-9-1997, whereas the respondents no. 4 and 5 were placed in the wait list and were given appointment on the post of Dy. S.P. by order dated 5-1998.

3. According to the petitioner, the amendment in the gradation list, by the respondent no.1 has caused serious prejudice to him, thereby adversely affecting his valuable rights. It is not out of place to mention here that during the pendency of this writ petition, the representation made by the petitioner was also dismissed, therefore, the petition was amended and prayer for quashment of order dated 21-9-2022 was also made and accordingly, this petition has been filed seeking the following relief(s):

(i) That, the order impugned dated 17-11-2016 contained in Annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed with all consequential effect, in the interest of justice;

(ii) That, the respondents be commanded to considering the seniority of the petitioner, his seniority be fixed over and above to the respondent no.4 and 5 and extend all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice;

(iii) quash the order dated 21-9-2022 Annexure P/15;

(iv) Cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in the favour of the petitioner.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that M.P. Public Service Commission had conducted the State Services Examination in the year 1995 and the result was declared on 19-12-1996. Select list was prepared on 15-11997. The petitioner belongs to S.C. Category and his name finds place at serial no. 24 in the select list. The respondents no. 4 and 5 could not find any place in the select list and they were placed in supplementary list (Wait List). The respondents no. 4 and 5 were also selected for the post of Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative and accordingly, they were given appointment on the said post. On 29-9-1997, appointment order of the petitioner on the post of Dy.S.P. was issued. The validity of the select list was 1 year and validity of the supplementary list (wait list) was 1 1/2 year. It is the case of the petitioner that the validity of the supplementary list lapsed on 14-7-1998 as its life was to be counted from the date of issuance of select list i.e., 15-7-1997. It appears that two candidates who were selected for the post of Dy.S.P. did not join and accordingly, by order dated 13-4-1998, consent was obtained from respondents no. 4 and 5 regarding their willingness for their appointment on the post of Dy.S.P. Thereafter, the respondents no. 4 and 5 submitted their consent and accordingly on 5-10-1998, appointment orders of the respondents no. 4 and 5 on the post of Dy.S.P. were issued. It is submitted that the respondents no. 4 and 5 were placed below the petitioner in the gradation list, which was in accordance with law. It is submitted that the things moved smoothly till 2016 and there was no dispute. However, in the year 2016, the wife of the respondent no.4, who is also working in the police department was posted in the office of Additional Director General of Police (Personal). The said office is also responsible for maintaining the seniority of the officers. Accordingly, the respondent no.4 and 5 filed an application for upgradation of their seniority and without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the respondent no.1 by impugned order dated 1711-2016, upgraded the seniority of the respondents no. 4 and 5 and they were placed at serial no. 617(A) and 617(B) above the petitioner. The petitioner was not aware of this change in the gradation list. Only in the year 2020, the petitioner came to