The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed the principle that seniority in service must be determined from the initial date of appointment, not the date of transfer, when no specific rules mandate otherwise. This judgment underscores the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 16 and the Principles of Natural Justice, ensuring fairness in promotional opportunities for government employees.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Lata Shriwas, was initially appointed as a Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on a contractual basis in 2003. Her appointment was later regularized in 2005 under the Panchayat and Rural Development Department. Despite her name appearing in the promotion list, the respondent authorities failed to inform her about her promotion or relieve her from her previous posting. This led to a prolonged dispute regarding her seniority calculation for promotional purposes.
Procedural History
The petitioner’s journey through legal forums included:
- 2003: Initial appointment as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III
- 2005: Regularization of appointment
- 2012: Transfer to a new posting
- 2018: Absorption into the School Education Department
- 2022: Filing of Writ Petition No. WPS 9299/2022 seeking relief for non-relief from posting
- 2023: Impugned order dated 23.01.2023 denying seniority from initial appointment date
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the following reliefs:
- Quashing of the impugned order dated 23.01.2023
- Direction to the District Education Officer to calculate her seniority from the initial date of appointment
- Allowance to join her promotional post as Head Master, Primary School
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether seniority in service should be calculated from the initial date of appointment or the date of transfer, particularly when the transfer was at the employee’s request and no specific rules mandated otherwise.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that:
- The respondent authorities’ actions were unconstitutional, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
- The Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961 mandated that seniority be calculated from the initial date of appointment.
- The Supreme Court’s judgment in M.B. Joshi v. Satish Kumar Pandey held that seniority must be determined based on the length of continuous service in the same cadre.
- The circular dated 30.06.2018 absorbing teachers into the School Education Department did not alter the initial appointment date for seniority purposes.
For the Respondent
The respondent contended that:
- The petitioner was initially appointed under the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, and her seniority was rightly calculated from the date of transfer as per Clause 9 of the circular.
- The Transfer Policy allowed for seniority adjustment based on the date of posting at the transferred location.
- The petitioner’s claim was devoid of merit as she had been placed at the bottom of the seniority list in compliance with the circular.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16, emphasizing that seniority must be determined fairly and uniformly. It relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in M.B. Joshi v. Satish Kumar Pandey, which held that in the absence of specific rules, seniority should be based on the length of continuous service in the same cadre.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s initial appointment date was 2003, and her regularization in 2005 should have been the basis for calculating her seniority. The transfer in 2012 did not alter this fact, as the district of posting remained the same, and no rule mandated seniority adjustment based on transfer.
"In the realm of service jurisprudence, where no specific rules governing seniority exist, the seniority of persons holding similar posts in the same cadre must be determined strictly on the basis of the length of their continuous service, and not on the basis of any other extraneous or fortuitous circumstances."
The Court also distinguished the respondent’s reliance on Clause 9 of the circular, noting that it did not override the constitutional mandate of fairness or the judgment in Omkar Prasad Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh, which emphasized correcting seniority lists based on the initial appointment date.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated 23.01.2023. It directed the respondent authorities to re-examine the petitioner’s seniority from her initial appointment date and complete the process within 60 days. The Court further mandated that any consequential benefits arising from this correction be extended to the petitioner in accordance with the law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Seniority Must Be Calculated From Initial Appointment Date
The judgment reaffirms that seniority in service must be calculated from the initial date of appointment, not the date of transfer, unless specific rules provide otherwise. Practitioners should:
- Argue for seniority calculation from the initial appointment date in cases where transfers do not alter the cadre or department.
- Rely on Articles 14 and 16 to challenge arbitrary seniority adjustments.
Transfer Policies Cannot Override Constitutional Mandates
The Court clarified that transfer policies or circulars cannot override constitutional principles of fairness and equality. Key takeaways include:
- Circulars or policies must align with constitutional mandates and judicial precedents.
- Arbitrary adjustments to seniority lists based on transfers can be challenged under Article 14.
Prompt Corrective Action Is Mandatory
The Court’s direction to complete the seniority correction within 60 days sets a precedent for timely administrative action. Practitioners should:
- Seek time-bound directions for correcting seniority lists in similar cases.
- Ensure that consequential benefits (e.g., promotions, salary adjustments) are extended promptly upon correction.
