SC Grants Partial Relief on Seniority to Delayed Judicial Appointees.


23 April 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court in the matter of pawan Kumar Agrawal & Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., has partly allowed an appeal filed by candidates who were selected as Civil Judges in 2003 but faced delays in appointment. The Court directed that these appellants should be placed senior to those appointed in the 2012 batch of Judicial Officers.

The appellants were initially placed in a waiting list despite securing higher marks than some women candidates. They successfully challenged this in the High Court of Chhattisgarh in 2012, which directed their appointment. Consequently, they were appointed in July 2013.

 
 

However, they were placed below candidates appointed in 2006, 2008, and even the 2012 batch. Their representation for seniority based on the 2003 selection was rejected, citing the High Court's 2012 order stating seniority would be from the date of appointment. Subsequent attempts for clarification and challenging this rejection in the High Court failed.


Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued for seniority based on the 2003 selection or, at the very least, seniority over those appointed after the High Court's 2012 order.

The Supreme Court declined to revisit the finality of the 2012 High Court order regarding seniority from the date of appointment. However, the Court focused on whether the appellants were entitled to seniority over the 2012 batch, who were appointed on July 10, 2012, before the appellants' eventual appointment in July 2013.

The Supreme Court noted that the appellants' right to appointment accrued on May 2, 2012, the date of the High Court's order. The 2012 batch was appointed more than two months later. The Court opined that the State should have acted promptly to appoint the appellants after the High Court's order, even though an SLP was filed (which was later dismissed). The delay by the State in implementing the High Court's order should not prejudice the appellants' seniority.

Relying on a previous judgment, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, directing that the appellants be considered senior to the Judicial Officers appointed on July 10, 2012. No order was made regarding costs.