Supreme Court rules seniority begins from appointment date, gives 2012 judges edge over same-year recruits. Court says State delay shouldn’t hurt candidates’ rightful place in service hierarchy.
New Delhi: In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that the seniority of Civil Judges (Junior Division) should be counted from the date of their appointment, not from the date of selection or any other earlier process.
This ruling came in the case of Pawan Kumar Agrawal & Another v. State Of Chhattisgarh & Others (C.A. No. 5478/2025), where the dispute was regarding the seniority of certain candidates appointed as Civil Judges in Chhattisgarh.
The Appellants were appointed based on a 2003 recruitment process. However, their appointments were finalized by the High Court order dated 2nd May 2012, and the formal appointment was made on 8th July 2013.
ALSO READ: Calcutta High Court Lifts Stay on Appointment of 29 Civil Judges in West Bengal
They later found that their names were placed lower in seniority compared to candidates who were selected through later recruitment processes in 2006, 2008, and 2012, especially those appointed in July 2012. This placement prompted them to approach the Court.
The Supreme Court partly allowed their appeal, directing that they should be placed higher in the seniority list than those appointed in July 2012, while rejecting their claim to seniority over candidates appointed before the High Court’s order in May 2012.
A bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the case. The Appellants were represented by Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia, while the Respondents were represented by Deputy Advocate General B.S. Rajesh Agrajit and Senior Advocate Apoorv Kurup.
During the hearing, the Appellants argued that since they were selected in the 2003 selection process, they should be given seniority over candidates selected later in 2006, 2008, and 2012. They said they were entitled to seniority at least over those appointed after the High Court’s order in May 2012.
The Court, however, reasoned that since the High Court itself had made it clear in the order dated 2nd May 2012 that the seniority of the Appellants was to be counted from the date of their appointment, the same must be followed.
The Supreme Court observed,
“It can thus be seen that the seniority of the appellants was to be reckoned from the date of their appointment. As such, we do not find merit in the claim of the appellants with regard to the grant of seniority vis-à-vis those candidates who were appointed prior to the date of the order of the High Court i.e. 2nd May 2012.”
The Court also emphasized that,
the Appellants’ seniority had rightly been considered from the date of their actual appointment, i.e., 8th July 2013,
and since the High Court order had already become final, the Appellants could not demand seniority with retrospective effect.
It is thus submitted that,
since it is clear from the order of the High Court dated 2nd May 2012 that the appellants’ seniority was to be reckoned from the date of their appointment, their seniority has rightly been considered from the date of their appointment i.e. from 8th July 2013. The said order having attained finality, it is now not open for the appellants to say that they ought to have been granted seniority with retrospective effect.
The Court further pointed out that the 2012 batch was appointed on 10th July 2012, which was over two months after the High Court’s order dated 2nd May 2012. During this period, the State could have taken necessary steps like police verification and document formalities to appoint the Appellants.
Undisputedly,
the 2012 batch was appointed on 10th July 2012 i.e., after a period of more than 2 months from the date of the order of the High Court. As already pointed out by us hereinabove, no one has appeared for the candidate from the 2012 batch of the Judicial Officers who was impleaded in the present case,
“We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the delay in giving effect to the order of the High Court dated 2nd May 2012 by the State Government should not be permitted to act to the prejudice of the appellants.”
“We are of the considered opinion that the right to be appointed accrued to the appellants on the date of the order of the High Court i.e. on 2nd May 2012. The period between the date of the order of the High Court and the appointment of the batch of 2012 is more than 2 months.
ALSO READ: CJI to Hear Patna HC judge’s Plea Over Salary Delay for 10 months
During the said period, the respondent-State could very well have fulfilled the necessary formalities like police verification, etc., and issued an order of appointment to the appellants,”
Therefore, the Supreme Court gave a balanced judgment. While denying retrospective seniority against appointments made before 2nd May 2012, it acknowledged that the Appellants were entitled to seniority over those appointed after that date, especially the July 2012 batch.
“The appeal is partly allowed…It is directed that in the seniority list, the appellants be shown senior to the Judicial Officers who were appointed on 10th July 2012.”
This judgment clarifies the law on seniority among judicial officers and reinforces that administrative delays cannot disadvantage candidates whose appointments are delayed for no fault of their own.
Cause Title: Pawan Kumar Agrawal & Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Case No.: C.A. No. 5478/2025
Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
Appearing for Appellants: Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia; AOR Anjani Kumar Mishra; Advocates Hardeep Kaur Mishra, Praveen Mishra, and Sanat Pandey
Appearing for Respondents: DAG B.S Rajesh Agrajit; Senior Advocate Apoorv Kurup; AOR Ankita Sharma, Nidhi Mittal, Shaveta Mahajan; Advocates Arjun D Singh, Harsh Pathak, Gurjas Singh Narula, and Jaya Choudhary
This judgment holds significant relevance for future recruitment and seniority-related disputes in the judiciary and public services, reaffirming the importance of timely appointment orders and fairness in service seniority.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Chhattisgarh Case
