Once settled, seniority can’t be unsettled at instance of fence-sitters: High Court

The High Court of J&K and Ladakh on Wednesday ruled that once the seniority is finalised and acted upon, the same cannot be disturbed at the instance of fence-sitters.

Dealing with a related plea, a Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that “It needs no reiteration that seniority once settled and acted upon cannot be unsettled, that too, at the instance of those who are fence-sitters and approach the Court after long delay”.

The Court observed that the doctrine of delay and laches applies with greater vigour to matters relating to seniority and promotion, underscoring that belated challenges adversely effect on third parties’ interests. “Raking up old matters like seniority and promotion after a long time is likely to result in administrative complications and difficulties,” the court said.

The court made the observations while dismissing four judicial officers’ plea on the grounds of delay, saying that the seniority list issued in 2011 was challenged only in 2018 after the same had already been acted upon and promotions had been granted.

The Bench, in keeping with the supreme Court judgments, held that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed unless the person approaching belatedly explains the delay and laches by furnishing satisfactory explanation.

In the case on hand there is no satisfactory explanation rendered for approaching the court after seven years, that too, when impugned seniority stood acted upon and promotion to the rank of Sub-Judge had been made, the Bench said.

In their plea, the aggrieved judicial officers had sought to quash the 2011 seniority list with the contention that they should be ranked according to their merit (positions 16, 17, 18, and 26) in the selection conducted by the J&K Public Service Commission (JKPSC). However, the court noted that only 31 vacancies existed at the time of recruitment, and the petitioners were among four additional candidates selected due to a clerical error that led to the advertisement of 35 posts.

The court observed that while 31 candidates were appointed in April 2011 against available vacancies, the petitioners were appointed later in September 2011 against future vacancies that arose due to promotions. As such, their appointments were not part of the original selection process, it said.

On noticing the discrepancy, the High Court recommended appointments only against the 31 available vacancies and the Government accordingly appointed 31 candidates as Munsiffs on April 1, 2011, excluding the four petitioners.

Following promotions in 2011—where 16 Sub Judges were elevated as District Judges and 15 Munsiffs promoted as Sub Judges, fresh vacancies arose.

In view of the petitioners’ legitimate expectation of appointment after being selected by the JKPSC, the High Court initiated a process to accommodate them against these vacancies.

Subsequently full-bench of the high court made recommendation and the Government while acting upon the same sanctioned their appointment as Munsiffs on September 27, 2011, by utilising four future vacancies.