Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on April 23, 2025 partly allowed a plea for promotion of two persons selected to post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Chhattisgarh, advertised in 2003 but appointed in July, 2013. 

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih while partly allowing the plea, did not agree that the appellant Pawan Kumar Agrawal and with the co-appellant should be granted promotion to the subsequent selections made in 2006 and 2008. 

The appellants who secured 127 and 125 marks respectively, were placed in the supplementary select or waiting list, despite securing better marks than two women candidates.

Brief Background

On May 2, 2012, the division bench of the High Court allowed their writ petition and directed their appointment, subject to the fulfilment of necessary formalities such as police verification etc, against the available vacancies for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). However, they were placed below the candidates selected in the year 2006, 2008 and 2012. Their representation, application as well as writ petition was rejected, forcing them to approach the apex court.        

In their arguments, the appellants contended, having been selected in the selection process of 2003, they ought to have been granted seniority over all such candidates who were selected in pursuance to the subsequent selection process conducted in the years 2006, 2008 and 2012. Their counsel said that, in any case, the appellants were entitled to seniority over the candidates who were appointed after the order of the division bench of the High court of May 2, 2012. It was submitted that the appellants ought to have at least been placed above the batch appointed on July 10, 2012.

The counsel for the state submitted that the order of the High Court of May 2, 2012 was clear. As per the said order, the seniority of the appellants was to be reckoned from the date of their appointment.  

The state counsel also said though the order of the High Court was passed on May 2, 2012, the same was challenged before this court by way of special leave petition which was rejected on November 30, 2012, the appellants were appointed on July 8, 2013 -Since the order of the High Court dated May 2, 2012 provided 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 July 8, 2013 and that the said order having attained finality, it was now not open for the appellants to say that they ought to have been granted seniority with retrospective effect.

Considering the matter, the court said it would not propose to go into the merits and demerits of the order passed by the division bench of the High Court of May 2, 2012, inasmuch as it has attained finality in view of the dismissal of the SLP by this court by the order dated November 30, 2012. 

"It is clear from the record that the writ petition filed by the appellants was decided on May 2, 2012. As such, the State ought to have appointed the appellants within a reasonable time. Though the State had challenged the said order in an SLP before this court, the order of the High Court was never stayed by this court. Ultimately, the SLP came to be dismissed on November 30, 2012.Even thereafter, for a period of around eight months, no action was taken by the State in issuing an order of appointment to the appellants", the bench noted.

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;  

"We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the delay in giving effect to the order of the High Court of May 2, 2012 by the State Government should not be permitted to act to the prejudice of the appellants. In this respect, we may gainfully refer to the order passed by this court in the case of Pilla Sitaram Patrudu and others Vs Union of India and others (1996)," the bench conclusively said.

Partly allowing the appeal, the court directed that the appellants should be shown senior to the judicial officers who were appointed on July 10, 2012 in the seniority list.  

Case Title: Pawan Kumar Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh