1 2026:CGHC:2375-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 11 of 2026 1 - Ajay Kumar Bajpai S/o Late Shri Nandan Prasad Bajpai, Aged About 61 Years, R/o New F-1, Jailor Bungalow, Central Jail Parisar, Central Jail Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 492002 2 - The Director General, Jail and Correctional Services, Chhattisgarh, Headquarter Jail and Correctional Services, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 492018. 3 - Goverdhan Singh Shori, Posted as Jail Superintendent, District Jail Dantewada, District Dantewada C.G. 494449 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. S.C. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.01.2026 Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.01.16 17:54:58 +0530 2 1. Heard on I.A. No.01, which is an application for exemption from filing typed copy. 2. On due consideration, I.A. No.01 is allowed and the appellant is exempted from filing typed copy of some of the pages of annexures. 3. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.6965 of 2018 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 4. The subject matter in brief is that the writ appellant who was writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge has filed the writ petition with the pleadings that he was successfully cleared State Service Examination conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and the list was published on 04.11.1993, though the petitioner could not secure position in the select list, but he was at serial number 5 of wait list published on 04.11.1993 along with the main list for the post of Assistant Jailor. One of the candidates, Goverdhan Singh Sori, respondent No. 3 belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category who has been selected and secured position at serial number 27 of the select list and up to serial number 25 of the said select list candidates were unreserved category and from serial number 26 onwards the candidates belonged to the reserved category. Due to the non-joining of one candidate from the unreserved category, the petitioner was 3 appointed vide order dated 03.08.1995 and he joined on the post of Assistant Jailor. Subsequently, the petitioner received the gradation list which was for the period between 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 and he came to know that his name has been placed below the respondent No. 3. He immediately filed his representation on 08.04.2011, which was forwarded to the Madhya Pradesh Government for deciding the seniority of the petitioner as per its rules and circulars. Since the representation of the petitioner remained unanswered, he again made his representation on 05.10.2011 and claimed seniority over and above the respondent No. 3. Subsequent to that, he again made a reminder representation to the authorities concerned. In the month of February 2012 the representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he has not annexed the number of his merit list and there is no material to decide the fact that the petitioner secured higher marks from respondent No.3. It is also case of the petitioner that one Shambhu Lal Nayak, whose name was placed at serial No.26 in the select list was awarded punishment of demotion in rank and in his place the respondent No.3 was placed. On an application made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, the Madhya Pradesh Govt. supplied details of marks which reveals that the petitioner secured higher marks then respondent No.3 and then the petitioner again made his representation on 19.06.2015, but no action was taken. Thereafter, he filed Writ Petition (S) No. 4203/2016 before this 4 Court and during pendency of the said writ petition his representation was rejected by the authorities on 28.03.2017 holding that the petitioner has been appointed from the supplementary list and the respondent No. 3 has been appointed from the main list and the writ petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 15.06.2017 on the ground that the writ petition has become infructuous, however, the liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioner to challenge the subsequent order if so advised. Thereafter, the petitioner again moved a detailed representation before respondent No. 1 to decide his seniority based on the marks secured by him in the examination. By the order dated 11.09.2018, his representation has been again rejected and his grievance has not been considered which is challenged in the present writ petition. The said writ petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge who after hearing the parties decided the writ petition on 29-10-2025 and dismissed the same holding that the petitioner is selected from the wait list of general category candidates and his appointment is more than a year after the appointment of respondent No.3 from the main merit list and therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the writ appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the wait list and the main list are linked to each other and both are prepared and recommended based on the marks obtained by the 5 candidates in qualifying examination, therefore, the wait list cannot be considered to a separate recommendation. Once a candidate has been issued the letter of appointment, the seniority must be decided on the basis of their rules in order of merit in which the candidates are recommended irrespective of dates of their respective joining. From the same advertisement and the same recruitment process respondent No.3 as well as the petitioner were appointed and the petitioner has secured higher marks then the respondent No.3, but the learned Single Judge has erred in considering intra category selection in the issue of determination of seniority of the candidates on the basis marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examination. He would also submit that the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Rules of 1961’) has not been properly considered by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition, therefore, the impugned order suffers from perversity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned order and submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is strictly in accordance with law and there is no perversity or infirmity and no interference is required. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the writ petition as well as the writ appeal. 6 8. It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 was appointed through the merit list and the petitioner was appointed through the wait list. The recommendation for appointment of the petitioner from the wait list was made on 03-08-1995. Prior to that the respondent No.3 was already joined as per the merit list. 9. Rule 12(1)(a) of the Rules of 1961 provided the determination of seniority, which reads as under : "The seniority of a person directly appointed to a post according to rules shall be determined on the basis of the order of merit in which they are recommended for appointment irrespective of the date of joining. Person appointed as a result of an earlier selection shall be senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection." 10. While considering the Rule 12(1)(a) of the Rules of 1961 the learned Single Judge has considered that the Rule 12(1)(a) of the Rules of 1961 does not prescribe inter se comparison of merit between candidates selected under different categories or between those from the main list and the wait list. Undisputedly the petitioner was placed in the wait list of the General category candidates, whereas respondent No. 3 was placed in the main list of the ST category candidates. Their selection was under distinct categories, with different merit thresholds. Learned Single Judge has also considered that the selection of the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 was not inter se but intra-category. 11. While considering the writ petition the learned Single Judge also considered the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 7 in the matter of Pawan Pratap Singh & Others v. Reevan Singh & Others, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 267, Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi & Others, reported in (1975) 4 SCC 714. It has also been considered by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner was appointed on 03.08.1995, whereas, respondent No. 3 was appointed on 06.05.1994. The marks secured by a candidate of Scheduled Tribe category cannot directly comparable to the marks secured by a candidate of General category due to distinct reservation criteria, relaxed cut-offs, and categorywise merit determination. 12. The learned Single Judge has also considered the another aspect of the petition that the petitioner was appointed in 1995 and initial gradation list, reflecting that respondent No. 3 is senior to the petitioner, was published in the year 1998. However, the petitioner has raised first time in the year 2011 and filed the writ petition in the year 2018. On the ground of such inordinate delay and claiming relief by the petitioner, the learned Single Judge has also considered the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Lal Berry (supra), Malcom Lawrence Cecil D’Souza vs. Union of India, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 599 and Vijay Kumar Kaul vs. Union of India, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 610, and also considered that the claiming seniority by the petitioner after a long delay would defeat the equity particularly in the service matter when others right have been adversely affected. 8 13. The learned Single Judge has also considered that the petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties as the petitioner claims for revised seniority, but has not impleaded the employees who might have suffered from their seniority and relied upon the judgment of Public Service Commission vs. Mamta Bisht, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 204. 14. Further considering that the right of seniority is a civil right and it is not a fundamental right. While relying upon the judgment Indu Shekhar Singh vs. State of U. P., reported in (2006) 8 SCC 129, it has been observed by the learned Single Judge that seniority is a vital aspect of civil right arising from statutory rules, administrative instructions, or service regulations and denial of fixation of seniority may not ipso facto invoke the violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. 15. After detailed consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court governing the field, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition which in the opinion of this Court is proper appreciation of material available in the writ petition and the pleadings of the parties. 16. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is 9 usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. 17. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil