The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that the time at which an employee joins duty on the same day cannot be used to determine seniority when the governing service rules require seniority to be based on the order of merit in the selection process. Setting aside the University's revised gradation lists, the Court restored the seniority of Ku. Bhuneshwari over Santosh Kumar Shriwas and directed the University to consider her for promotion with all consequential service benefits, if otherwise eligible.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from the recruitment of two Stenographers at Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya, Khairagarh, pursuant to an advertisement issued in January 2014. Both Ku. Bhuneshwari and Santosh Kumar Shriwas were appointed through the same selection process on 16 July 2014.
The appointment order placed Ku. Bhuneshwari at Serial No. 1 and Santosh at Serial No. 2. After completing probation, both were confirmed in service. A gradation list issued in February 2017 also showed Ku. Bhuneshwari as senior.
However, in April 2020, the University issued a revised gradation list placing Santosh above Ku. Bhuneshwari. The University justified the change by stating that Santosh had joined duty in the forenoon while Ku. Bhuneshwari joined in the afternoon. Her objections were rejected, and the revised seniority was retained, leading to litigation. Later, another gradation list issued in June 2023 again restored Ku. Bhuneshwari to the top position, resulting in competing writ petitions over inter se seniority.
Court's Observation
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad examined Rule 12(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, which provides that seniority of directly recruited employees must be determined according to the order of merit in which they are recommended for appointment, irrespective of the date of joining.
The Court observed that the University's reliance on the fact that Santosh joined in the forenoon while Ku. Bhuneshwari joined later the same day was contrary to the statutory rule.
The bench observed,
"Rule 12(1)(a) specifically mandates that seniority shall be determined irrespective of the date of joining. Consequently, the distinction sought to be drawn on the basis of joining in the forenoon or afternoon is wholly alien to the statutory rule and cannot legally determine seniority."
The Court further noted that although the University claimed the appointment order did not reflect the actual merit position, it failed to produce the select list, merit list, Selection Committee proceedings or any contemporaneous record establishing that Santosh had secured a higher merit position than Ku. Bhuneshwari.
According to the Court, in the absence of such evidence, the appointment order remained the best available proof of the order in which the candidates had been recommended and appointed.
The High Court also emphasised that while seniority is not a fundamental right, it is an important civil right governed by statutory service rules. Any attempt to alter an existing seniority position must comply with the principles of natural justice.
The bench observed that employees likely to be affected by a change in seniority must receive notice and an opportunity to present their case before any revision is made. It held that disturbing a settled gradation list without following due process is legally unsustainable.
Court's Decision
Allowing the challenge to the revised gradation lists, the High Court quashed the gradation lists dated 29 April 2020 and 2 June 2020 insofar as they placed Santosh Kumar Shriwas above Ku. Bhuneshwari.
The Court held that the gradation list dated 9 June 2023, which restored Ku. Bhuneshwari above Santosh, was consistent with Rule 12(1)(a) of the 1961 Rules and would govern the parties' inter se seniority.
The University was directed to grant all consequential service benefits flowing from the determination of seniority, including consideration of Ku. Bhuneshwari for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant to the Registrar from the date her immediate junior was considered or promoted, if she is otherwise eligible. If found fit, she will be entitled to notional promotion, continuity of seniority and other consequential benefits. The exercise has been directed to be completed within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. Both writ petitions were disposed of without any order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Ku. Bhuneshwari v. The Indira Kala Sangeet University & Ors. (Connected with Santosh Kumar Shriwas v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.)
Case Number: WPS No. 4204 of 2020 (Connected with WPS No. 8421 of 2023)
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Decision Date: 10 July 2026
