Disturbing Seniority Position After Long Period Unsustainable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Seniority List, Allows Plea Of Judicial Officers

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the seniority list and allowed the Writ Petitions filed by Judicial Officers, saying that disturbing their seniority position after a long period is unsustainable.

The Writ Petitions sought a direction declaring the 2022 Final Seniority List issued in supersession of the Final inter se Seniority List of the District Judges issued in 2017, as illegal.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed, “The petitioners are entitled to protection of their seniority and disturbing their seniority position after a long period and that too in violation of Rule 13 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules 2007 by the impugned seniority list dated 05.01.2022, is unsustainable.”

The Bench said that merely because the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh of the common State did not notify, on that ground, it cannot be said that the seniority list of 2017 was not final and not binding.

Senior Advocate M. Vijaya Kumar, Advocates C. Srinivasa Baba, Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, N. Bharath Simha Reddy, U.D. Jai Bhima Rao, and A. Rajendra Babu represented the Petitioners while Standing Counsel N. Ashwani Kumar, Advocates Yugandhar, and Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda represented the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

In the lead case, the Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Civil Judge in 1998 and she was promoted as Senior Civil Judge in 2008. She had applied for promotion to the post of the District Judge under Limited Competitive Exam Category, 10% quota, pursuant to the notification in 2015. She was also considered under the category of promotion quota of 65% and the declaration and recommendation for her, by the then common High Court was made. Her name was shown in both the lists of selected candidates under both 10% & 65% quotas. However, in the revised selection list, her name was deleted from the list of promotes under the promotion categories under 65% while retaining her name under Accelerated Recruitment by Transfer category 10% quota and that was done without asking the Petitioner to exercise her option as to in which category she wanted to remain.

That was an exercise suo motu and after the 2015 revised selection list, the State issued a Government Order (GO) for Respondents under 65% quota. Thereafter, the Petitioner’s seniority was also fixed in the final seniority list published in 2017 and the same was final even if it was not notified by the State after being sent to it by High Court as the same was acted upon by granting promotion basing on that list, and still continues in State of Telangana, except for the deleted names who opted for State of Andhra Pradesh. As per the Petitioner’s case, there was no occasion to prepare fresh final seniority list of 2022, in which her grievance was that she was illegally placed below the Respondents. Hence, this was under challenge before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, reiterated, “It is a settled principle of law that practice adopted and followed in the past and within the knowledge of the public at large, can legitimately be treated as good practice acceptable in law. What has been part of the general functioning of the authority concerned can safely be adopted as good practice, particularly, when such practices are clarificatory in nature and have been consistently implemented by the authority concerned, unless it is in conflict with the statutory provisions or principal document.”

The Court noted that even if it be taken that a fresh exercise could be done, by the present High Court to prepare the final seniority list, as the previous final seniority list was not notified and hence after bifurcation there was necessity to prepare the final seniority list, in view of the judicial officers opting for the State of Andhra Pradesh or / and for the State of Telangana, the seniority position of the Petitioners qua 65% promotion quota appointees on the post of District Judge under the notifications for recruitment of the same date, for the same recruitment year, could not be disturbed, by the impugned seniority list of 2022, violating Rule 13 (a) of the Rules 2007.

“Even if the seniority list of 04.02.2017 was not notified, preparation of the seniority list dated 05.01.2022 should have been as per Rule 13 (a) of the Rules 2007. … The proposition of law is well settled on which there can be no dispute, but the same cannot be applied in the preent dispute of seniority”, it added.

The Court further observed that the person whose seniority is going to be affected or while preparation of seniority list objections are invited and the objections are filed, it cannot be said by applying any principle that on rejection of the objection, such person cannot challenge such rejection or question the final seniority list.

Conclusion

The Court, therefore, concluded the following points –

i) The Petitioners cannot be made junior to all the 65% quota appointees based on the date of the Government Order for appointment. That would be contrary to the legislative mandate under Rule 13 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules 2007;

ii) The seniority between the recruitees under different quotas for the same recruitment year must be considered as per Rule 13 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules 2007, by applying 40 point roster and placing the appointees from their respective categories at the place assigned as per the roster in Schedule A;

iii) Even if the exercise for preparation of fresh seniority list could be undertaken after bifurcation of the State in view of the changed circumstances, and in view of no notification of the 2017 seniority list, and the seniority position of the appointees of the recruitment year 2015, under different quotas, could not be disturbed for that recruitment year, detrimental to their seniority position;

Hence, the Court held and concluded that the seniority list of 2022 cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions, quashed the seniority list, and directed preparation of fresh seniority list with respect to the Petitioners.

Cause Title- Guduri Rajani v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (Case Number: WRIT PETITION Nos. 1675, 2707 and 2882 of 2022)

Click here to read/download the Judgment