Seniority among employees with identical appointment dates in the same cadre should prioritize age per Rule 37(2) Chapter XIVA KER.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner, who is working as HSST (Economics) in Ithithanam Higher Secondary School, Malakunnam, Changanassery, seeks to declare that the petitioner being the eldest HSST among the HSSTs joined on 28.06.2004 is the seniormost HSST and the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in assigning rank No.2 to the 5^th respondent denying the right of the petitioner to be assigned the topmost rank in the cadre of HSST is illegal and arbitrary.

2. Accoridng to the petitioner, he joined service by direct recruitment as HSST Junior on 10.010.2003. The post was upgraded as HSST (Economics) with effect from 28.06.2004. In the combined staff seniority list, Ext.P3, as on 01.06.2024, the petitioner was assigned rank No.4 and the 5^th respondent was assigned rank No.2. The petitioner states that the post of HSST Junior held by serial Nos.2 to 8 in Ext.P3 seniority list was upgraded on the same date 28.06.2004 and all of them joined duty on the said date. As per Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIVA KER , the seniority shall be decided on the basis of date of first appointment.

3. If the date of appointment is also the same, the seniority shall be decided with reference to age, the older being the senior. The seniority list was prepared considering the date of entry in service. Therefore, the 5threspondent- V.J. Vijaya Kumar, who joined service in the High School on 02.06.1997, was assigned rank No.1.

4. In view of the judgments of this Court and considering the legal principles for determining interse seniority of candidates who joined on the same day, the age is the criteria. The petitioner being senior in age ought to have been ranked at serial No.2.

5. The petitioner states that going by Chapter XXXII Rule 6 of KER , High School service can be reckoned only for the purpose of qualifying service and not for the purpose of seniority. However, the 5^th respondent has been assigned superior seniority based on his High School service.

6. When the then Principal was granted leave from 09.07.2024 to 31.01.2025, Ext.P3 seniority list was relied on and the 5^th respondent was put in additional charge of Principal as per Ext.P4. The petitioner requested the 4^th respondent-Manager to put him in the eligible position in the seniority list considering his age. The petitioner requested to set aside Ext.P3 combined staff list, as per Ext.P5 representation submitted to the 1^st respondent.

7. As there was no response, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.3607/2025 wherein this Court directed the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation of the petitioner and pass orders. The 1^st respondent passed Ext.P7 order whereby the Government directed the Manager to draft a seniority list of existing HSST and directed the Deputy Director of Education to approve the list if the same is in order.

8. The Manager submitted Ext.P8 seniority list dated 01.01.2025 before the Regional Deputy Director. The petitioner raised his objection. In the meanwhile, the 4^th respondent-Manager appointed the 5^th respondent as Principal as per Ext.P9 order. On receiving Ext.P9, the 3^rd respondent, without deciding on the seniority of HSSTs, directed to put the 5^th respondent as Principal-in-Charge and DDO. The 5^th respondent is signing all vital documents as Principal.

9. Later, by Ext.P13 order dated 17.10.2025, the 3^rd respondent-RDD provisionally approved the seniority list of HSSTs. Ext.P13 provisional seniority list was later approved by the 3^rd respondent as per Ext.P14 proceedings dated 13.10.2025. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P14.

10. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Rajeswari Devi v. State of K ER ala [ 2023 (2) HC 589 ] wherein this