Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 16232
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
L.C. KOSLE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS No. 7077 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amrito Das, Yashkaran Singh
For the Respondents: Kawaljeet Singh Saini
When a court directs that an appointment be treated as a 'fresh appointment' for all purposes, the appointee is legally barred from claiming seniority or benefits based on any previous, invalidated appointment.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged the gradation list published on 27.11.2019 and an order dated 03.11.2021, seeking seniority from their initial appointment date of 28.08.2008. The petitioners were originally appointed following a recruitment process in 2006, but were subsequently removed from the merit list after the deletion of eight questions from the Main Examination. Following a challenge in SLP No. 26341-26342 of 2011, the Supreme Court directed the State to appoint them at the bottom of the revised merit list, explicitly stating that such appointments would be treated as fresh appointments without entitlement to back wages or seniority based on earlier appointments. The central issue is whether the petitioners are entitled to claim seniority from their original appointment date despite the Supreme Court's mandate to treat them as fresh appointees. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court's directions were clear and binding, specifically stating that the appointment "shall for all intents and purpose be fresh appointment which would not entitle the appellants to any back wages, seniority or any other benefit based on their earlier appointment." Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of recruitment, subsequent removal from merit list, and the supreme court's direction for fresh appointment at the bottom of the list. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. conflicting arguments regarding whether seniority should be counted from the original 2008 appointment or the 2013 fresh appointment. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. the court's determination that a 'fresh appointment' mandate precludes any claim to prior seniority. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
Order on Board
1. Heard.
2. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records from the respondents with respect to preparation of the gradation list published on 27.11.2019 and also the record concerning issuance of the order dated 03.11.2021 (ΑΝΝEXURE P-1).
10.2. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order dated 03.11.2021 (ΑNNEXURE P-1).
10.3. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to rectify the gradation list and place the petitioners maintaining their inter se seniority immediately after serial No. 59 in the gradation list of Platoon Commander as in the year 2013.
10.4. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to grant the petitioners all the benefits which have been accrued to his juniors had the petitioners been placed after serial No. 59 in the gradation list as in the year 2013.
10.5. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.”
3. The facts in brief are that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process for appointment to 380 posts of Subedars, Platoon Commanders and Sub-Inspectors pursuant to advertisement dated 18.09.2006. A preliminary examination was conducted on 24.12.2006 and Main Examination was conducted on 04.02.2007 & 05.02.2007. A merit list was published on 08.04.2008. The petitioners were appointed pursuant to merit list dated 28.08.2008. Thereafter, 8 questions of Main Examination were deleted and the position of the petitioners got lowered in the merit list and revised merit list was published on 27.06.2009, wherein, names of the petitioners were absent. The petitioners challenged the said decision of the respondent authorities by filing WPS No.3204 of 2009, wherein, initially, interim protection was granted in favour of the petitioners and subsequently, writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 06.09.2011. The petitioners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No.26341-26342 of 2011 and those SLPs were disposed of vide order dated 09.07.2013, wherein, following observations were made :
“26 . Our considered view, undergone the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent-State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependents but also but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list.
27. Accordingly, we direct the respondent-State to appoint the appellants in the revised merit list placing them at the bottom of the said list. The candidates who have crossed the minimum statutory age for appointment shall be accommodated with suitable age relaxation.
28 . We clarify that their appointment shall for all intents and purpose be fresh appointment which would not entitle the appellants to any back wages, seniority or any other benefit based on their earlier appoint
