Seniority Reckoned From Date Of Appointment: Supreme Court Places 2012 Batch Of Candidates For Civil Judges (Junior Division) In Retrospective Seniority Than Another Group Recruited In Same Year

The Court partly allowed an Appeal concerning the seniority among Civil Judges in Chhattisgarh (appointed by the Order of the High Court in May, 2012), directing the authorities to place them in seniority to those appointed in July 2012. The Appellants challenged their seniority placement below those appointed in subsequent years (2006, 2008, and 2012).

A Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “It can thus be seen that the seniority of the appellants was to be reckoned from the date of their appointment. As such, we do not find merit in the claim of the appellants with regard to the grant of seniority vis-à-vis those candidates who were appointed prior to the date of the order of the High Court i.e. 2nd May 2012.”

Senior Advocate PS Patwalia appeared for the Appellants, while DAG BS Rajesh Agrajit and Senior Advocate Apoorv Kurup represented the Respondents.

Arguments Advanced

The Appellants argued that having been selected in the selection process of 2003, they ought to have been granted seniority over all such candidates who were selected in pursuance of the subsequent selection process conducted in the years 2006, 2008 and 2012. It was submitted that, in any case, the Appellants were entitled to seniority over the candidates who were appointed after the order of the Division Bench of the High Court in May 2012.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court noted, “It is thus submitted that since it is clear from the order of the High Court dated 2nd May 2012 that the appellants’ seniority was to be reckoned from the date of their appointment, their seniority has rightly been considered from the date of their appointment i.e. from 8th July 2013. The said order having attained finality, it is now not open for the appellants to say that they ought to have been granted seniority with retrospective effect.”

“Undisputedly, the 2012 batch was appointed on 10th July 2012 i.e., after a period of more than 2 months from the date of the order of the High Court. As already pointed out by us hereinabove, no one has appeared for the candidate from the 2012 batch of the Judicial Officers who was impleaded in the present case,” the Bench remarked.

The Court held, “We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the delay in giving effect to the order of the High Court dated 2nd May 2012 by the State Government should not be permitted to act to the prejudice of the appellants.”

“We are of the considered opinion that the right to be appointed accrued to the appellants on the date of the order of the High Court i.e. on 2nd May 2012. The period between the date of the order of the High Court and the appointment of the batch of 2012 is more than 2 months. During the said period, the respondent-State could very well have fulfilled the necessary formalities like police verification, etc., and issued an order of appointment to the appellants,” the Bench stated.

Consequently, the Court ordered, “The appeal is partly allowed…It is directed that in the seniority list, the appellants be shown senior to the Judicial Officers who were appointed on 10th July 2012.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court partly allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Pawan Kumar Agrawal & Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (C.A. No. 5478/2025)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia; AOR Anjani Kumar Mishra; Advocates Hardeep Kaur Mishra, Praveen Mishra and Sanat Pandey

Respondents: DAG B.S Rajesh Agrajit; Senior Advocate Apoorv Kurup; AOR Ankita Sharma, Nidhi Mittal and Shaveta Mahajan; Advocates Arjun D Singh, Harsh Pathak, Gurjas Singh Narula and Jaya Choudhary

Click here to read/download the Judgment