Jammu Kashmir High Court Upholds Munsiff Seniority List 2011 | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a long-pending writ petition challenging the seniority list of Munsiffs issued in 2011, holding that the petitioners, who were appointed against future vacancies, could not claim seniority over candidates appointed earlier against clear vacancies.

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar pronounced the judgment on May 6, 2026, in SWP No. 1577/2018 titled Tabassum Qadir Parray and Others versus High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Another.

The petition had been reserved for judgment on April 20, 2026.

The petitioners, Tabassum Qadir Parray, Meyank Gupta, Sajad-ur-Rehman and Altaf Hussain Khan, had sought quashing of the seniority list issued by the High Court on November 19, 2011. They argued that their placement in the seniority list should correspond to their merit positions in the selection list prepared by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (PSC) in 2010.

The petitioners were represented by Salih Pirzada.

The High Court was represented by MI Qadiri, while the government was represented by Waseem Gul and Faheem Nisar Shah. Private respondents were represented by Showkat Ali Khan.

According to the judgment, the controversy originated from a recruitment process initiated in 2008 for appointment of Munsiffs in the subordinate judiciary. The High Court had referred 31 vacancies, including four backlog posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates, to the Law Department for onward referral to the PSC.

However, the Law Department mistakenly referred 35 vacancies to the PSC by treating the four backlog vacancies as additional posts instead of part of the original 31 vacancies. Acting on the reference, the PSC advertised and subsequently selected 35 candidates.

The court observed that had the error not occurred, the petitioners would not have figured in the select list at all.

After the selection process concluded, the High Court detected the discrepancy and found that only 31 actual vacancies existed. Consequently, only 31 candidates were appointed as Munsiffs through a government order issued on April 1, 2011, while the petitioners were left out.

Subsequently, after promotions created fresh vacancies in the cadre, the High Court recommended appointment of the petitioners against four future vacancies, and the government appointed them as Munsiffs through an order dated September 29, 2011.

The petitioners argued that since they were part of the same selection process and had secured higher merit positions than some appointees, their seniority should be fixed according to merit under Rule 24 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956.

Rejecting the contention, the Division Bench held that the petitioners were not appointed simultaneously with the earlier batch and therefore could not claim seniority based on merit ranking alone.

“The date of first appointment of the petitioners is, and has to be taken as, 29.09.2011,” the court observed, adding that appointments made against future vacancies after conclusion of the selection process could not be treated as continuation of the original recruitment.

The Bench further held that the appointments of the petitioners against future vacancies were “de hors the Rules” and “irregular, if not void ab initio.”

Referring extensively to Supreme Court precedents including Shankarsan Dash versus Union of India, Sudesh Kumar Goyal versus State of Haryana and State of U.P. versus Rafiquddin, the court reiterated that mere inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.

The court also held that seniority settled and acted upon cannot ordinarily be reopened after long delay. It noted that the petitioners approached the court in 2018, nearly seven years after issuance of the seniority list and after promotions had already been made on its basis.

Calling the writ petition hit by “delay and laches,” the Bench said unsettling seniority after such a prolonged period would adversely affect third parties and create administrative complications.

The petition was ultimately dismissed, with the court holding that the claim lacked merit both on facts and in law.