The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a significant ruling on judicial service matters, has quashed a 2022 final seniority list of District Judges. A division bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam held that for a common recruitment year, seniority must be determined by the roster points prescribed in the service rules, and not by the date on which the government issues appointment orders for different recruitment streams. The court directed the preparation of a fresh seniority list in line with a previously settled 2017 list.
Background of the Case
The case involved three writ petitions filed by District Judges Guduri Rajani, G. Anwar Basha, and P. Bhaskara Rao. The petitioners were appointed as District Judges in 2016 through the 10% quota for Accelerated Recruitment by Transfer (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination) for the recruitment year 2015.
The recruitment process for this 10% quota and the 65% promotion quota for Senior Civil Judges was initiated on the same date, March 31, 2015. The results for both were declared on November 14, 2015, and the common High Court sent the list of selected candidates to the government for appointment on the same day, November 24, 2015.
However, the government issued appointment orders for the 65% quota appointees on January 20, 2016, while the orders for the petitioners under the 10% quota were issued later, on February 8, 2016.
Following this, the erstwhile common High Court for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana prepared and finalized an inter-se seniority list on February 4, 2017. This list determined seniority based on the 40-point roster system prescribed under Rule 13(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. In this list, the petitioners were placed above the appointees from the 65% quota. The petitioners asserted that this list was acted upon, with promotions being granted based on it.
After the bifurcation of the High Court, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh initiated a fresh process to fix seniority for District Judges appointed between 2010 and 2019. A new final seniority list was issued on January 5, 2022, and subsequently notified by the government on March 11, 2022. In this revised list, the petitioners were placed below the officers from the 65% quota, citing that their government appointment orders were issued on a later date. This demotion in seniority prompted the petitioners to challenge the 2022 list before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioners argued that the 2022 seniority list was arbitrary and violated Rule 13(a) of the 2007 Rules, which mandates seniority fixation as per the 40-point roster. They contended that since the entire recruitment process for both quotas was simultaneous, the mere fact that the government issued their appointment orders a few days later could not divest them of their rightful seniority. They further argued that the 2017 seniority list had attained finality, was acted upon, and was protected by the Supreme Court’s decision in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningma Siro, which held that its principles would apply prospectively and protect seniority already fixed.
The respondent High Court, on its administrative side, defended the 2022 list. It argued that the 2017 list never attained finality as it was not officially notified by the government, which was a long-standing practice. The primary argument was that seniority cannot be granted from a date when a person was not “borne in the cadre.” Since the appointment orders for the 65% quota officers were issued earlier, they were appointed to the service before the petitioners and were therefore rightly placed as seniors.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The division bench, after a detailed analysis, sided with the petitioners. The court concluded that the executive’s action of issuing appointment orders on different dates cannot undermine the legislative intent enshrined in the service rules.
The judgment noted that the recruitment year was the same (2015), the notification was issued on the same day, results were declared on the same day, and the High Court sent the recommendations on the same day. In this context, the court found that the seniority must be governed by the specific provision of Rule 13(a). The judgment states, “The legislative intent for determination of the seniority under the statute amongst persons appointed from different sources, but under Notifications of the same date… is clearly expressed by applying roster points. It could not be defeated by the State by making one category of persons junior to the other… by issuing the appointment orders on different dates.”
The court held that the 2017 seniority list had effectively attained finality as it was prepared in accordance with the rules and was acted upon by granting promotions. The non-notification by the government was deemed a “ministerial act” which could not invalidate the determined seniority.
Furthermore, the bench held that the 2017 seniority list was protected by the Supreme Court’s ruling in K. Meghachandra Singh. The judgment noted, “The seniority list… for the same recruitment year 2015… was prepared at the time when N. R. Parmar’s judgment (supra) was in operation. So, the said seniority list dated 04.02.2017 would be saved and protected in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra).”
The court also affirmed the principle that settled seniority should not be disturbed after a long period, observing that “disturbing their seniority position after a long period and that too in violation of Rule 13 (a)… by the impugned seniority list dated 05.01.2022, is unsustainable.”
The Final Decision
The High Court allowed all three writ petitions and quashed the final seniority list dated January 5, 2022, along with the subsequent government notification.
The court issued the following directions:
- A fresh seniority list for the 2015 recruitment year shall be prepared by applying the roster point system under Rule 13(a), keeping in view the 2017 seniority list.
- This exercise must be completed within four months from the date of the judgment.
- No promotions are to be issued based on the quashed 2022 seniority list until the revised list is prepared.
- The petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.
