The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed a critical principle in public employment law: when the state causes undue delay in appointments, candidates who were higher in merit but delayed must be granted seniority and all consequential benefits on par with those appointed later, even if they ranked lower.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ramesh Chandra Pareek, a School Lecturer in Geography, was selected in a competitive examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Despite securing a higher merit position, his appointment was delayed due to administrative inaction by the State. Meanwhile, candidates who ranked lower in merit were appointed earlier and began accruing seniority, pay increments, and other service benefits.
Procedural History
- The petitioner filed multiple representations seeking equal treatment with those appointed later but lower in merit.
- The State authorities failed to respond substantively to these representations.
- The petitioner then filed this writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
- The Court found the issue squarely covered by its earlier judgments in Manoj Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan and Krishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the State to:
- Treat his appointment as effective from the date the lower-ranked candidates were appointed
- Grant him all consequential benefits including seniority, continuity of service, pay fixation, annual grade increments, and selection scale benefits
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether candidates who were delayed in appointment due to the State’s own fault are entitled to consequential benefits and seniority on par with those appointed later but lower in merit, and whether the State can deny such relief merely because the petitioner was higher in merit.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Manoj Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan and Suman Bai v. State of Rajasthan, arguing that:
- Administrative delay caused by the State cannot be used to penalize meritorious candidates
- The principle of equality under Article 14 mandates equal treatment in service benefits when the delay is attributable to the State
- Denying consequential benefits would amount to rewarding the State’s inaction
For the Respondent
The State did not file a detailed counter-affidavit or oppose the petition substantively. The respondents’ silence was treated as acquiescence to the legal position established in prior judgments.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the doctrine of equitable relief in public employment, emphasizing that the State cannot benefit from its own default. It reaffirmed the holding in Suman Bai v. State of Rajasthan that candidates with a fresh cause of action due to administrative delay are not barred by res judicata or laches.
"Candidates in lower order of merit cannot be entitled merely because they had approached court earlier. Petitioners had a fresh cause of action for approaching in such situation and their writ petition not barred either as res judicata or as being improperly constituted."
The Court noted that in similar cases involving School Lecturers (English), the State had already granted consequential benefits to lower-ranked candidates. To deny the same to the petitioner - despite his higher merit - would violate the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 and the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
The Court further clarified that while the petitioner is entitled to notional seniority from the date of the lower-ranked candidates’ appointment, actual promotion or higher pay scales would depend on subsequent vacancies and service rules. However, seniority for pay fixation, increments, and service continuity must be granted retroactively.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that seniority and consequential benefits must be granted to candidates delayed by State fault, even if they ranked higher in merit than those appointed later. The State was directed to consider the petitioner’s representation within three months and issue a speaking order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consequential Benefits Are Not Discretionary
- Practitioners must now argue that consequential benefits (pay fixation, increments, seniority) are automatic when delay is attributable to the State
- Denial of such benefits without a reasoned order violates Article 14
- Representations must be treated as mandatory, not optional
Administrative Delay Cannot Be a Shield
- The State cannot use its own administrative inefficiency to justify unequal treatment
- Courts will not permit the State to profit from its delay
- Any delay beyond statutory timelines triggers an obligation to grant retroactive benefits
Notional Seniority Is Binding for Service Continuity
- While actual promotions may require vacancies, notional seniority for pay, increments, and service continuity is enforceable
- Petitioners must be placed in the seniority list as if appointed on the date of the lower-ranked candidate’s appointment
- This applies across all State services where appointments are delayed due to procedural lapses
