Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 20034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Bhuneshwari – Appellant
Versus
Indira Kala Sangeet University Khairagarh – Respondent
WPS No. 4204 of 2020|WPS No. 8421 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Siddharth Pandey, Soni
For the Respondents: Bajpai

Seniority for direct recruits must be determined based on the order of merit as recommended for appointment, per statutory rules. Time of joining is irrelevant. Any alteration to a finalized seniority list without notice and opportunity of hearing to affected parties violates the principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Seniority - Determination of inter se seniority - Statutory rules mandate that seniority of direct recruits be determined based on the order of merit in which they are recommended for appointment, irrespective of the date of joining - Time of joining, whether in the forenoon or afternoon, is an irrelevant criterion for determining seniority. (Paras 10, 15, 17)

(B) Service Law - Seniority - Alteration of seniority - Principles of natural justice - Any revision, refixation, or alteration of a finalized seniority list requires notice and an opportunity of hearing to all affected parties - Failure to provide such opportunity violates the principle of audi alteram partem - A seniority list once finalized attains a degree of finality and cannot be unsettled unilaterally or casually. (Para 14)

(C) Service Law - Evidence - Appointment order - In the absence of a specific merit list or contemporaneous records, the order of names in the appointment order serves as the best available evidence regarding the order of merit for seniority purposes. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
Two employees were appointed to the same post on the same day via a common appointment order. The appointment order listed the first employee at serial number one and the second at serial number two. Subsequently, the employer altered the seniority list, placing the second employee above the first, citing the time of joining (forenoon versus afternoon) and claiming a clerical error in the initial list. The affected employee challenged these revisions, leading to the present petitions.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the employer's reliance on the time of joining was contrary to statutory rules. Furthermore, the alteration of the seniority list without providing an opportunity for a hearing to the affected party violated the principles of natural justice. The court also noted that no evidence was produced to justify the claim that the initial appointment order did not reflect the merit list.

Issues: The main issues were whether the employer was justified in altering the seniority of the employees based on the time of joining and whether the earlier seniority list could be treated as erroneous without proper evidence or adherence to natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Seniority must be determined strictly according to the order of merit as prescribed by statutory rules, and the time of joining is not a valid criterion. Any revision to a settled seniority list without adhering to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness is legally unsustainable and vitiated.

Result: Petitions allowed; impugned seniority lists quashed.

Table of Content
1. disputed seniority and promotion claims based on contradictory gradation lists. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. seniority is determined by merit order, not date of joining. (Para 8 , 10 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. due process and natural justice required for altering settled seniority. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 21 , 22)
4. court order restoring seniority and directing consequential service benefits. (Para 20 , 23 , 24)

2. For the sake of unambiguity, the petitioners will be referred henceforth as per their initial i.e. Ku. Bhuneshwari and Santosh.

3. For the purposes of disposal, facts pleaded in WPS No.4204 of

2020 will be referred to. An advertisement was issued by the respondent no. 1 on 20.1.2014 for two posts of Stenographers out of which, one was reserved for Scheduled Tribes category and another post was unreserved. The petitioners were called for ability test on 27.6.2014 and thereafter for interview on 29.6.2014. Respondent no. 1 without issuing merit list directly issued appointment order which is evident from order dated 1.6.2020. The Petitioners were appointed on the post of Stenographer by respondent no. 1 vide order dated 16.7.2014 for a probation period of 1 year or maximum extendable for 2 years. It is submitted that in the said appointment order, name of petitioner- Ku Bhuneshwari appears at serial no. 1 whereas name of Santosh is at serial no. 2. Thereafter, the petitioners were made permanent after completion of probation period on the said post by respondent no. 1 after the recommendation of working committee vide order dated 1.9.2015 with effect from 24.7.2015. Seniority list of Stenographer was issued by the respondent no. 1 on 10.2.2017 whereby petitioner Ku Bhuneshwari was placed at serial no. 1 and Santosh was placed at serial no. 2. Ku Bhuneshwari made a representation before the respondent no. 1 seeking therein promotion to the post of Personal Assistant to the Registrar. The problem started after making the above representation. The respondent no. 1 surprisingly published seniority list of Personal Assistant to Registrar, Stenographer and Stenotypist on 29.4.2020 wherein, Ku Bhuneshwari was placed at serial no. 2 in seniority list of Stenographer without giving any opportunity of hearing to her. The respondent no. 1 in the seniority list assigned reasons to place Santosh at serial no. 1 as he joined the services in forenoon whereas Ku Bhuneshwari joined her services in the afternoon. Ku Bhuneshwari raised objection to the gradation list dated 29.4.2020 on the ground that on 10.2.2017 she was senior to Santosh and after 3 years, she has been placed at serial no. 2 which is illegal and arbitrary. Ku. Bhuneshwari also stated that her additional qualification of Computer Operator and Programming Assistant (COPA) has not been enlisted in the service book whereas same was filed along with submission of form against advertisement. Respondent no. 1 decided the objection of the petitioner on 1.6.2020 and rejected the same on the ground that in gradation list of 13.12.2016 name of Santosh was at serial no. 1 but due to mistake, in the year

2017, Ku Bhuneshwari was placed at serial no. 1. Respondent no. 1 after realizing the mistake rectified the same on 29.4.2020 and placed Santosh at serial no. 1 and Ku Bhuneshwari at serial no. 2. Respondent no. 1 also stated that the appointment order was not issued according to merit list. Further, Santosh joined his services in forenoon whereas Ku. Bhuneshwari joined services in afternoon, therefore, Santosh has been placed at serial no. 1 in gradation list. The Respondent no. 1 has relied on Rule 12(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules,1961 (henceforth “Rules, 1961”). Ku. Bhuneshwari filed an objection on 2.6.2020 against the gradation list dated 29.4.2020 and order dated 1.6.2020 stating that order passed by Respondent No.1 on 01.06.2020 and gradation list dated 29.04.2020 are contradictory. She also submitted that her name has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 20034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURAmitendra Kishore Prasad, JBhuneshwari – AppellantVersusIndira Kala Sangeet University Khairagarh – RespondentWPS No. 4204 of 2020|WPS No. 8421 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Bhuneshwari – Appellant
Versus
Indira Kala Sangeet University Khairagarh – Respondent
WPS No. 4204 of 2020|WPS No. 8421 of 2023