PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL & ANR.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

                 [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1622 : 2025 INSC 545

                     Pawan Kumar Agrawal & Anr.
                                  v.
                     State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 5478 of 2025)
                                 23 April 2025
           [B.R. Gavai* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards the date from which the appellants are
       entitled to seniority in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division);
       also whether, the appellants are entitled to seniority over the batch
       of Judicial Officers appointed on 10.07.2012.

                                   Headnotes†
       Judicial Services – Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Seniority –
       Appellants selected in the selection process of 2003 were
       appointed in terms of the order of High Court dtd.02.05.2012
       wherein it was also stated that their seniority was to be
       reckoned from the date of appointment – Delay in appointment
       by State – Appellants appointed in July 2013 – Placed below
       candidates selected in 2006, 2008 and 2012 – Appellants’ claim
       for seniority was rejected on ground that the order of High
       Court stating that the seniority will be determined from the
       date of appointment had attained finality as the same was not
       challenged – Date from which the appellants are entitled to
       seniority in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division):
       Held: Order passed by the High Court attained finality – Seniority
       of the appellants was to be reckoned from the date of their
       appointment – No merit in the claim of the appellants with regard
       to the grant of seniority vis-à-vis candidates who were appointed
       prior to the date of the order of the High Court – Appellants’ writ
       petition was decided on 02.05.2012 – 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 – SLP was
       dismissed on 30.11.2012 – Even thereafter, for around 8 months,
       no action was taken by the State in issuing an order of appointment
       to the appellants – In the meantime, 2012 batch was appointed
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                             1623

      Pawan Kumar Agrawal & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.


     on 10.07.2012 i.e., after more than 2 months from the date of
     the order of the High Court – The right to be appointed accrued
     to the appellants on the date of the order of the High Court i.e.
     02.05.2012 – 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 – Delay in giving effect to the order of the High Court
     by the State cannot act to the prejudice of the appellants – In
     the seniority list, the appellants be shown senior to the Judicial
     Officers appointed on 10.07.2012 – Chhattisgarh Civil Services
     (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 – Chhattisgarh Lower
     Judicial (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994.
     [Paras 10, 12-16]

                              Case Law Cited
     Pilla Sitaram Patrudu and Others v. Union of India and Others
     [1996] 3 SCR 870 : (1996) 8 SCC 637 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial (Recruitment and Conditions of Service)
     Rules, 1994; Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of
     Services) Rules, 1961; Constitution of India.

                             List of Keywords
     Seniority; Civil Judge (Junior Division); Seniority in the cadre of
     Civil Judge (Junior Division); Seniority to be reckoned from the date
     of appointment; Seniority list; Judicial Officers; Chhattisgarh State
     Public Service Commission; Recruitment to the post of Civil Judge,
     Appointment date; Delay in appointment; Right to be appointed.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5478 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2019 of the High Court
     of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in WA No. 341 of 2019

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Anjani Kumar Mishra, Praveen Mishra,
     Rajesh Kumar Singh, Krishna Gopal Mishra, Saurav Sharma,
     Sunil Kumar Nema.
1624                                                      [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     Advs. for the Respondents:
     B.S Rajesh Agrajit, D.A.G., Apoorv Kurup, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ankita
     Sharma, Arjun D. Singh, Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Dr. Harsh Pathak,
     Ms. Shaveta Mahajan, Mohit Choubey, Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Ms. Jaya
     Choudhary.

               Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     B.R. Gavai, J.

1.   Delay condoned.
2.   Leave granted.
3.   The present appeal challenges the judgment and final order dated
     30th July 2019, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
     Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as, “High Court”) in
     Writ Appeal No. 341 of 2019, whereby the High Court dismissed the
     appeal filed by the appellants thereby affirming the order dated 13th
     May 2019 rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
     in Writ Petition (S) No.3620 of 2019.
4.   The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:
     4.1 On 2 nd April 2003, the Chhattisgarh State Public Service
         Commission issued Advertisement No.01/2003/Exam inviting
         applications for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge, Class-II.
     4.2 The appellants submitted their applications, participated in the
         examination as well as the interview. Thereafter, while preparing
         the final select list, the appellants who secured 127 and 125
         marks respectively, were placed in the supplementary select
         list/waiting list, despite securing better marks than two women
         candidates.
     4.3 Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed Writ Petition No.1827
         of 2004 before the High Court challenging the legality and
         validity of the selection on the ground that the selection under
         the reserved quota for women has been made in excess of the
         quota prescribed under Rule 6-A of the Chhattisgarh Lower
         Judicial (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994
         and Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                      1625

      Pawan Kumar Agrawal & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.


     4.4 On 2nd May 2012, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed
         the writ petition and directed the appointment of the appellants,
         subject to the fulfilment of necessary formalities such as police
         verification etc., against the available vacancies for the post of
         Civil Judge (Junior Division). The High Court further held that
         the seniority of the appellants will be reckoned from the date
         of their appointment.
     4.5 Consequently, the appellants were appointed on 8th July 2013
         and confirmed on 4th December 2015.
     4.6 Discontented by the fact that though the appellants were
         appointed pursuant to the selection process held in the year
         2003, they were placed below the candidates selected in the
         year 2006, 2008 and 2012, the appellants made a representation
         before the Registrar General of the Chhattisgarh High Court
         claiming seniority over the candidate prior to 2006 batch on the
         ground that the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions
         of Services) Rules, 1961 provides that seniority of the direct
         recruits shall be determined on the basis of order of merit
         irrespective of the date of appointment.
     4.7 On 24th June 2016, the representation of the appellants was
         rejected by the Registrar General of the High Court stating that
         the order of the High Court in Writ Petition No.1827 of 2004
         clearly states that the seniority will be determined from the date
         of appointment and the said order has attained finality.
     4.8 Consequently, the appellants filed an application being MCC
         No.681 of 2016 in Writ Petition No.1827 of 2004 seeking
         clarification of the order dated 2nd May 2012.
     4.9 On 28th September 2016, the Division Bench of the High Court
         dismissed the aforesaid application stating that the order dated
         2nd May 2012 requires no clarification as it does not suffer from
         any ambiguity.
     4.10 Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed Writ Petition No.3620
          of 2019 before the High Court seeking quashing of the letter
          dated 24th June 2016 issued by the Registrar General of the
          High Court rejecting the appellants’ claim of seniority.
     4.11 On 13th May 2019, the learned Single Judge of the High Court
          rejected the writ petition of the appellants stating that the
1626                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


           Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 2nd May
           2012 in Writ Petition No.1827 of 2004 had stated in categorical
           terms that the seniority of the appellants would be reckoned
           from the date of appointment. If the appellants were aggrieved
           by the said direction, they ought to have challenged the same
           at that point of time, which the appellants did not do. Therefore,
           the said direction issued by the Division Bench of the High
           Court has attained finality.
     4.12 Discontented by the order of the learned Single Judge of the
          High Court, the appellants filed Writ Appeal No. 341 of 2019.
     4.13 Vide impugned judgment and final order dated 30th July 2019,
          the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal
          stating that the Court is not in a position to deal with the said
          issue on merits since the order dated 2nd May 2012 stands
          till date and the review petition filed against the same also
          stands dismissed.
     4.14 Aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred an appeal to this
          Court by way of special leave.
     4.15 It is to be noted that though candidates from the 2006, 2008
          and 2012 batch were impleaded in representative capacity,
          no one has put in appearance on their behalf.
5.   We have heard Shri. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing
     on behalf of the Appellants, Shri B.S. Rajesh Agrajit, learned Deputy
     Advocate General on behalf of Respondent No.1/State, Shri. Harsh
     Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent
     No.2 and Shri. Apoorv Kurup, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
     behalf of the Respondent No.3 at length.
6.   Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
     the appellants, submits that the appellants, having been selected in
     the selection process of 2003, 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. He submits 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 dated 2nd May 2012. It is,
     therefore, submitted that the appellants ought to have at least been
     placed above the batch appointed on 10th July 2012.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                            1627

      Pawan Kumar Agrawal & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.


7.   Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the order of
     the High Court dated 2nd May 2012 is clear. As per the said order,
     the seniority of the appellants was to be reckoned from the date of
     their appointment. It is submitted that though the order of the High
     Court was passed on 2nd May 2012, the same was challenged before
     this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (“SLP” for short) being
     SLP(C) No. 21673 of 2012 and after the said SLP was rejected
     on 30th November 2012, the appellants were appointed on 8th July
     2013. It is submitted that, in the meantime, the 2012 batch came
     to be appointed on 10th July 2012. 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.
8.   At the outset, we do not propose to go into the merits and demerits
     of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dated
     2nd May 2012, inasmuch as it has attained finality in view of the
     dismissal of the SLP by this Court vide order dated 30th November
     2012. We would only consider as to from which date the appellants
     could be entitled to seniority in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior
     Division).
9.   Undisputedly, in the order dated 2nd May 2012, the Division Bench
     of the High Court has clearly observed as under:
             "16.    Thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstances
                     of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct
                     respondent No.1 to appoint the petitioners,
                     subject to fulfillment of necessary formalities
                     like police verification etc. against the available
                     vacancies for the post of Civil Judge (Junior
                     Division). The seniority of the petitioners will,
                     however, be reckoned from the date of their
                     appointment.”
                                                  [Emphasis supplied]

10. 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
1628                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     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.
11. The only question that will have to be considered is. as to whether
    the appellants would be entitled to seniority over the batch of Judicial
    Officers who were appointed on 10th July 2012.
12. It is clear from the record that the writ petition filed by the appellants
    was decided on 2nd May 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 30th November 2012. Even thereafter,
    for a period of around 8 months, no action was taken by the State
    in issuing an order of appointment to the appellants.
13. 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.
14. 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. 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.
15. 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. In this respect, we may gainfully refer to the order passed
    by this Court in the case of Pilla Sitaram Patrudu and others v.
    Union of India and others.1
16. We are, therefore, inclined to partly allow the present appeal.
    Accordingly, we pass the following order:



1   (1996) 8 SCC 637
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         1629

      Pawan Kumar Agrawal & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.


     (i)     The appeal is partly allowed.
     (ii)    It is directed that in the seniority list, the appellants be shown
             senior to the Judicial Officers who were appointed on 10th July
             2012.
17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order
    as to costs.

     Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey