Srinagar: Reiterating the ‘settled principle’ that appointments made dehors the rules or against future vacancies cannot confer seniority over candidates regularly appointed against clear vacancies, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition filed by four judicial officers seeking revision of their seniority.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that seniority must flow from the date of first substantive appointment, not merely from merit position in a select list.
The petitioners—Tabassum Qadir Parray, Meyank Gupta, Sajad-ur-Rehman, and Altaf Hussain Khan—had challenged the seniority list of Munsiffs issued in November 2011. They argued that their placement in the select list prepared by the Public Service Commission (PSC) entitled them to higher seniority, as they were ranked above several candidates who were appointed earlier.
The court, however, rejected this plea, noting that the petitioners were not part of the original batch appointed against available vacancies. The bench pointed out that while 35 candidates were selected by the PSC due to an administrative error, only 31 vacancies actually existed at the time. Consequently, only 31 candidates were appointed initially in April 2011, while the petitioners were appointed later in September 2011 against future vacancies arising from promotions.
Clarifying the legal position, the court held that once the available vacancies were filled, the selection process stood concluded. Any subsequent appointment—even if drawn from the same select list—cannot be treated as part of the same selection stream. Therefore, the petitioners could not claim that their seniority should be fixed on the basis of inter se merit.
The judgment emphasized that a candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment merely by figuring in a select list, particularly when the selection exceeds notified vacancies.
The court observed that the petitioners’ appointments were made only as a matter of accommodation against later vacancies and were not part of the original recruitment cycle.
The bench further ruled that such appointments, being irregular and dehors the rules, form a distinct class and cannot be equated with regular appointees for the purpose of seniority. It underscored that granting such a benefit would unfairly prejudice those who were validly appointed in accordance with rules.
Another crucial aspect highlighted by the court was the delay of nearly seven years in challenging the seniority list. The bench held that seniority matters, once settled and acted upon, should not be reopened after a long lapse of time, especially when promotions have already been granted on that basis.
The court also noted that the petitioners had accepted their appointments and subsequently benefited from promotions under the same seniority framework, which further weakened their claim.
Entertaining such belated challenges, the court warned, would create administrative instability and adversely impact third parties.
Dismissing the petition as both time-barred and lacking merit, the High Court upheld the seniority list and reaffirmed the principle that regular appointments made in accordance with rules take precedence over irregular or compassionate appointments.
