1 CGHC010172372021 2026:CGHC:37608 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3801 of 2021  Vandana Deepak Dewangan W/o Shri Deepak Dewangan Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 16/100 Indira Colony, Near Higher Secondary School, Tarbahar VTC Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), Presently Posted As Additional District And Sessions Judge (FTSC/POCSO) Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, Village - Bodri Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Registrar General High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Village - Bodri, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar (Naya Raipur), Revenue And Civil District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Neeraj Sharma S/o Shri Bharat Lal Sharma Aged About 51 Years Presently Posted As Additional Director, State Judicial Academy, Chhattisgarh High Court, Village - Bodri, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Rajeev Kumar S/o Shri Khus Naseeb Singh Aged About 49 Years Presently Posted As Special Judge Under SC And ST (P.A.) Act, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 6. Suresh Joon S/o Shri Ajit Singh Aged About 52 Years Presently Posted As I Additional District And Sessions Judge - Janjgir, District - Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 7. Neelima Singh Baghel W/o Shri Pushpendra Singh Baghel Aged About 45 Years Presently Posted As I Additional District And Sessions Judge - Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.08.31 16:59:12 +0530 2 8. Dukhi Ram Dewangan S/o Shri Chandu Ram Dewangan Aged About 48 Years Presently Posted As I Additional District And Sessions Judge - Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. 9. Shubhra Pachori W/o Shri Mahendra Tiwari Aged About 44 Years Presently Posted As Additional District And Sessions Judge - (FTSC/POCSO) Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 10. Ganesh Ram Burman R/o- Near Pre-Matric S.C. Girls Hostel, Ward No. 19, Indira Nagar, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 11.Vijay Kumar Jolhe, Vatsalya Bhawan, Near Balaji Temple, Anand Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 For Respondent No. 3/State For Respondent No. 4 For Respondents No. 5, 6, 7 & 9 For Respondent No. 8 : : : : : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General Mr. Siddhant Das, Advocate Mr. Pushpendra Singh Baghel, Advocate Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 21/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records relating to recruitment on the post of District Judge (Entry Level) notified by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh for the year 2012, 2013 and 2014 and the gradation / seniority list of the concerned candidates. 10.2That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ / orders to concerned 3 authorities to rectify, amend and redrew seniority list dated 25/01/2021 (Annexure P-1) between the petitioner and the respondents No. No. 4 to 11 as per Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2006. 10.3That, the Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ / order to the concerned respondent authorities for grant of appropriate seniority to the petitioner as per Chhattisgarh High Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2006. 10.4That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside memorandum dated 04/02/2021 (Annexure P – 24) issued by the Registrar General High Court of Chhattisgarh. 10.5That, the Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ / direction to grant or consider for all consequential benefits to the petitioner, from the date from which it has been granted to the juniors to the petitioner. 10.6Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit according to the facts & circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. The facts in nutshell are that the High Court of Chhattisgarh, in exercise of power conferred under the Rule 5(1) of Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 (for short ‘the Rules of 2006) notified 19 vacancies of District Judge (Entry Level) vide Notification dated 13.06.2012. The bifurcation of 19 posts were as under:- A By promotion in accordance with the Rule 5(1)(a) of Rules of 2006 - 08 posts. B By promotion limited Competitive Examination under Rule 5(1)(b) of Rules of 2006 – 01 post. C By direct recruitment from Bar in accordance with Rule 5(1)(c) of Rules of 2006 – 11 posts 4 11 posts under Rule 5 (1)(c) of Rules of 2006 included 08 backlog posts from year 2011. 3. Out of 11 posts earmarked for direct recruitment; 02 posts were reserved for scheduled caste category out of which 01 post was reserved for woman category; 05 posts under open category wherein 02 posts were reserved for women; 02 posts for scheduled caste wherein 01 post was reserved for women and 02 posts for other backward class where 01 posts was reserved for women category. The written exam was conducted on 09.05.2013 and in said examination the petitioner participated as candidate of Scheduled Caste (Women) candidate, was found eligible as her name was at Serial No. 03 in the merit list. She was invited for Viva-Voce vide letter dated 10.05.2013. Out of 11 posts, 06 were filled up and the post reserved for scheduled caste women candidate remained vacant. The High Court of Chhattisgarh again issued Advertisement to fill up 17 posts of District Judge (Entry Level) vide Notification dated 04.04.2013, wherein 11 posts were to be filled by promotion as per Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules of 2006; 02 posts by promotion through limited Competitive Examination under Rule 5(1)(b) of the Rules of 2006 and 04 posts by direct recruitment from the Bar in accordance with Rule 5(1)(c) of the Rules of 2006. Before conclusion of the recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement dated 04.04.2013, another Notification was issued on 03.06.2013 to fill up 39 posts of District Judge (Entry Level). Subsequently a corrigendum Notification was also issued on 13.06.2013. The vacancies were to be filled as under :- A 25 posts by promotion in accordance with Rule 5(1) (a) of the Rules of 2006. 5 B 04 posts by promotion through limited Competitive Examination in accordance with Rule 5(1)(b) of the Rules of 2006 C 10 posts by direct recruitment from the Bar in accordance with Rule 5(1)(c) of the Rules of 2006. 4. Another Advertisement was issued on 30.07.2013 to fill up the vacancies of District Judge (Entry Level) in respect of scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and other backward classes candidates under proviso to Rule 6(1) the Rules of 2006 in continuation of the earlier Advertisement dated 14.09.2012. The Advertisement was issued to fill up 02 posts in respect of scheduled caste, 02 posts for scheduled tribe candidates and 01 post for other backward classes. 5. The petitioner submitted her application form against post reserved for Scheduled Caste category for post of District Judge Entry Level. Written examination was conducted on 20.10.2013 and list of qualified candidates was declared on 10.12.2013. The petitioner qualified the examination and her name was at Serial No. 06. She participated in the interview and subsequently, order of appointment was issued on 06.05.2014 by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Law and Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan and the High Court of Chhattisgarh issued separate order of appointment on 26.06.2014. Her name appeared at Serial No. 02 in merit list. 6. On 09.09.2013 Advertisement was issued to fill up 10 posts of District Judge (Entry Level) by direct recruitment wherein 01 post was reserved for scheduled caste (women) category. The petitioner participated in said recruitment process and she was declared qualified 6 in written examination vide list of eligible candidates dated 19.09.2014. The petitioner was invited for Viva-Voce vide letter dated 24.02.2014, but she withdrew her candidature as she was already selected for the post of District Judge (Entry Level). 7. Meanwhile, the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 3.6.2013 was concluded and private respondents were appointed. The High Court of Chhattisgarh issued orders of appointment in favour of respondents No. 4 to 11 on 30.10.2014, wherein their names appeared at Serial No. 1 to 8 respectively. The High Court of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 30.01.2017 issued certificate of confirmation in terms of Rule 9(5) of the Rules of 2006 in favour of Higher Judicial Officers, wherein name of petitioner appeared at Serial No. 28, whereas names of respondents No. 4 to 9 appeared at Serial No. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 respectively. Subsequently services of the petitioner and private respondents were confirmed vide order dated 07.03.2020. In the order dated 07.03.2020, the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 43 below the private respondents. In the order dated 07.03.2020, date of confirmation of petitioner and private respondents was shown to be 04.05.2019. 8. The petitioner made a representation before the respondent No. 2 on 20.09.2019 seeking correction of her seniority in the gradation list and the High Court vide order dated 25.01.2020 modified seniority of members of Higher Judicial Services and placed the petitioner at Serial No. 38 below the private respondents. The petitioner made various representations, but no response was given, therefore, she filed this writ petition on 13.07.2021. 7 9. Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that seniority of the petitioner has been reckoned in violation of provisions of Rules of 2006. Mr. Sharma would argue that according to Rule 11(3) of the Rules of 2006 inter se seniority should be reckoned based on date of appointment and in order of merit list. He would contend that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 26.06.2014, whereas private respondents were appointed on 30.10.2014 and thus, the petitioner is senior to private respondents. He would further contend that the appointment of the petitioner was against Advertisement dated 30.07.2013, whereas respondents No. 4 to 11 were appointed against Advertisement dated 03.06.2013. He would pray to allow this petition. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. 11. Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 would argue that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the posts of District Judge (Entry Level) pursuant to Advertisement dated 14.09.2012, where after completion of the selection process, orders of appointment were issued on 14.11.2013 by the State Government, but the petitioner could not secure position in merit list and vacancies against scheduled caste category remained vacant. He would argue that fresh Advertisement to fill up 39 vacancies of District Judge (Entry Level) was issued on 13.06.2013 and subsequently an Advertisement was issued on 30.07.2013 to fill up 05 vacancies in respect of scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and other backward classes 8 candidates for the posts of District Judge (Entry Level) examination 2012 in continuation of notification dated 13.6.2012. He would contend that the petitioner was appointed against Advertisement issued on 30.07.2013 vide order dated 06.05.2014. He would contend that there was delay in issuance of the appointment orders under Rule 5(1)(c) of the Rules of 2006 in favor of the private respondents, therefore, the private respondents were appointed subsequently vide order dated 30.10.2014. He would submit that private respondents were appointed against Advertisement dated 13.6.2013, therefore they have been placed above the petitioner. It is contended that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 12. Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondent No. 3; Mr. Siddhant Das, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 4; Mr. Pushpendra Singh Baghel, learned Advocate appearing for respondents No. 5, 6, 7 and 9 and Mr. R.S. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 8 would support the contention made by Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate. They would argue that vacancies in cadre of District Judge (Entry Level) was issued vide Notification dated 13.06.2013 to fill up total 39 posts in accordance with provisions of Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 2006. They would contend that select list was issued under the provisions of Rules 5(1) (a), 5(1) (b) and 5(1) (c) on 28.03.2014 and posting orders were issued by the High Court in favour of the private respondents on 30.10.2014. They would further contend that an Advertisement was issued to fill up the vacancies reserved for scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and other backward classes on 30.07.2013 and against said Advertisement, the 9 petitioner was appointed vide order dated 06.05.2014. They would submit that as there was delay in issuance of appointment orders and posting orders in favor of the private respondents, therefore the petitioner is not entitled to claim seniority over and above the private respondents. They would contend that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 13. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length, considered their rival submissions made herein above and perused the documents placed on the file with utmost circumspection. 14. The petitioner was appointed on the post of District Judge (Entry Level) as member of scheduled caste (women) category. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement issued on 30.07.2013 and her appointment order was issued by the State Government on 06.05.2014 and posting order was issued by the High Court on 26.06.2014, whereas private respondents participated in the recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement dated 13.06.2013 and appointment orders of the candidates under Rule 5(1)(c) of the Rules of 2006 were issued by the State Government on 29.09.2014 and their respective posting orders were issued on 30.10.2014. The private respondents have been placed above the petitioner in the gradation list on 02 grounds, which are as under :- i. The private respondents participated in recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement dated 13.06.2013, whereas the petitioner participated in subsequent recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement dated 10 30.07.2013; ii. There was delay in issuance of orders of appointment in favour of the private respondents. 15. Rule 11 of the Rules of 2006 deals with seniority. This provision deals with seniority of persons appointed either by promotion or through limited Competitive Examination or by direct recruitment. Sub-rule (3) (iii) of Rule 11 states that persons appointed to the service by direct recruitment shall be ranked inter se in the order of merit they are placed in the select list. Those recruited earlier shall be ranked senior to those recruited later. 16. In the present case, though the Advertisement, whereby private respondents were appointed against vacancies notified under Rule 5(1)(c) of Rules of 2006, was notified on 13.06.2013 and the petitioner had participated in the recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement dated 30.07.2013, but notification of vacancies or date of issuance of Advertisement shall not be decisive to reckon seniority of appointees, rather their dates of appointment would be conclusive and relevant date to count their seniority in the cadre. The petitioner was appointed on 26.06.2014 much prior to the dates of appointment of the private respondents, therefore, according to Rule 11 (3) (iii) of Rules of 2006, the petitioner has right to claim seniority over and above the private respondents. 17. The Rule 11 (3) (iii) of Rules of 2006 is reproduced herein below:- “Rule – 11. Seniority. (3) Seniority of persons appointed under clause (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1) of rule 5 to the Service in category (a) of rule (1) of rule 3 shall be determined 11 in following manner:- (iii) Persons appointed to the Service by direct recruitment shall be ranked inter se in the order of merit they are placed in the select list, those recruited earlier shall be ranked senior to those recruited later.” 18. In the matter of K. Meghachandra Singh and Others Vs. Ningam Siro and Others1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraphs No. 28 to 30 and 34 to 39 as under:- “28. Before proceeding to deal with the contention of the appellants’ counsel vis-a-vis the judgment in N.R. Parmar7, it is necessary to observe that the law is fairly well settled in a series of cases, that a person is disentitled to claim seniority from a date he was not borne in service. For example, in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik3 the Court considered the question whether the year in which the vacancy accrues can have any bearing for the purpose of determining the seniority irrespective of the fact when the person is actually recruited. The Court observed that there could be time-lag between the year when the vacancy accrues and the year when the final recruitment is made. Referring to the word “recruited” occurring in the Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941 the Supreme Court held in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik3 that person cannot be said to have been recruited to the service only on the basis of initiation of process of recruitment but he is borne in the post only when, formal appointment order is issued. 29. The above ratio in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik3 is followed by this Court in several subsequent cases. It would however be appropriate to make specific reference considering the seniority dispute in reference to the Arunachal Pradesh Rules which are in pari materia to the MPS Rules, 1965 [vide Nani Sha v. State of Arunachal Pradesh9 ]. Having regard to the similar provisions, the Court approved the view that seniority is to be reckoned not from the date when vacancy arose but from the date on which the appointment is made to the post. The Court particularly held that retrospective seniority should not be granted from a day when an employee is not even borne in the cadre so as 1. (2020) 5 SCC 689 12 to adversely impact those who were validly appointed in the meantime. 30. We may also benefit by referring to the judgment in State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava10. This judgment is significant since this is rendered after the N.R. Parmar7 decision. Here the Court approved the ratio in Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh11, and concurred with the view that seniority should not be reckoned retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant Service Rules. The Supreme Court held that seniority cannot be given to an employee who is yet to be borne in the cadre and by doing so it may adversely affect the employees who have been appointed validly in the meantime. The law so declared in Ashok Kumar Srivastava10 being the one appealing to us, is profitably extracted as follows: (SCC p. 730, para 24) “24. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has drawn inspiration from the recent authority in Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh11where the Court after referring to earlier authorities in the field has culled out certain principles out of which the following being the relevant are produced below: (SCC pp. 281- 82, para 45) ‘45. (ii) Inter se seniority in a particular service has to be determined as per the service rules. The date of entry in a particular service or the date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or the other or between one group of officers and the other recruited from different sources. Any departure therefrom in the statutory rules, executive instructions or otherwise must be consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. * * * (iv) The seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service rules. It is so because seniority cannot be given on retrospective basis when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre and by doing so it may adversely affect the employees who have been appointed validly in the meantime.’ ” 13 34. The judgment in N.R. Parmar7 is now to be considered in some detail as this is heavily relied on by the appellants’ counsel.At the outset, it must however be cleared that the cited case had nothing to do with the MPS Rules, 1965 and that litigation related to the Income Tax Inspectors who were claiming benefits of various Central Government OMs (dated 22-12-1959,7-2-1986, 3- 7-1986 and 3-3-2008). The judgment was rendered in respect of the Central Government employees having their own Service Rules. The applicable Rules for the litigants in the present case however provide that the seniority in the service shall be determined by the order in which appointments are made to the service. Therefore, the memorandums concerned referred to in N.R. Parmar7 which deal with general principles for determination of seniority of persons in the Central Government service, should not according to us, have any overriding effect for the police officers serving in the State of Manipur. 35. After the judgment in N.R. Parmar7 was delivered, the Union of India issued the Office Memorandum on 4-3-2014 defining the recruitment year to be the year of initiating the recruitment process against the vacancy year and that the rotation of quota, would continue to operate for determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees. This Memo was not made applicable to the State of Manipur till the issuance of the OM dated 21-12-2017, adopting the OM dated 4-3-2014 prospectively with effect from 1-1- 2018. Significantly, the said OM specifically provided that “ … appointments/promotions made before the issue of this OM will not be covered by this OM. The seniority already fixed as per existing rules followed earlier in the State prior to the issue of this OM may not be reopened.” It was also specifically stated therein that “this OM will come into effect from 1-1-2018 with the publication in the Gazette….” 36. From the above, it is not only apparent that the above OM was only to be given prospective effect from 1-1-2018 but it contains an express acknowledgment that this was not the position prior to the issuance of the OM and that a different rule was followed earlier in the State. The conclusion is, therefore, inevitable that at least prior to 1-1-2018, direct recruits cannot claim that their seniority should be reckoned from the date of 14 initiation of recruitment proceedings and not from the date of actual appointment. 37. When we carefully read the judgment in N.R. Parmar7, it appears to us that the referred OMs (dated 7-2-1986 and 3-7-1986) were not properly construed in the judgment. Contrary to the eventual finding, the said two OMs had made it clear that seniority of the direct recruits be declared only from the date of appointment and not from the date of initiation of recruitment process. But surprisingly, the judgment while referring to the illustration given in the OM in fact overlooks the effect of the said illustration. According to us, the illustration extracted in N.R. Parmar7 itself, makes it clear that the vacancies which were intended for direct recruitment in a particular year (1986) which were filled in the next year (1987) could be taken into consideration only in the subsequent year’s seniority list but not in the seniority list of 1986. In fact, this was indicated in the two OMs dated 7-2-1986 and 3-7-1986 and that is why the Government issued the subsequent OM on 3-3-2008 by way of clarification of the two earlier Oms. 38. At this stage, we must also emphasise that the Court in N.R. Parmar7 need not have observed that the selected candidate cannot be blamed for administrative delay and the gap between initiation of process and appointment. Such observation is fallacious inasmuch as none can be identified as being a selected candidate on the date when the process of recruitment had commenced. On that day, a body of persons aspiring to be appointed to the vacancy intended for direct recruits was not in existence. The persons who might respond to an advertisement cannot have any service-related rights, not to talk of right to have their seniority counted from the date of advertisement. In other words, only on completion of the process, the applicant morphs into a selected candidate and, therefore, unnecessary observation was made in N.R. Parmar7 to the effect that the selected candidate cannot be blamed for the administrative delay. In the same context, we may usefully refer to the ratio in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India12, where it was held that even upon empanelment, an appointee does not acquire any right. 39. The judgment in N.R. Parmar7 relating to the Central Government employees cannot in our opinion, automatically apply to the Manipur State 15 Police Officers, governed by the MPS Rules, 1965. We also feel that N.R. Parmar7 had incorrectly distinguished the long-standing seniority determination principles propounded in, inter alia, Jagdish Ch. Patnaik3, Suraj Parkash Gupta v. State of J & K13 and Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh11. These three judgments and several other with like enunciation on the law for determination of seniority makes it abundantly clear that under service jurisprudence, seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbent is yet to be borne in the cadre. In our considered opinion, the law on the issue is correctly declared in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik3 and consequently we disapprove the norms on assessment of inter se seniority, suggested in N.R. Parmar7. Accordingly, the decision in N.R. Parmar7 is overruled. However, it is made clear that this decision will not affect the inter se seniority already based on N.R. Parmar7 and the same is protected. This decision will apply prospectively except where seniority is to be fixed under the relevant rules from the date of vacancy/the date of advertisement.” 19. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled law coupled with the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of Rule 11 (3) (iii) of the Rules of 2006, legal position can be summarized as under:- i. A person is not entitled to claim seniority from a date he/she was not borne in service. ii. A person cannot be said to have been recruited to the service only on the basis of initiation of process of recruitment but he/she is borne in the post when, formal appointment order is issued. iii. Retrospective seniority should not be granted from a day when an employee is not even borne in the cadre so as to adversely impact those who were validly appointed in the meantime. 16 iv. Seniority should not be reckoned retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant rules. v. Seniority cannot be given to an employee who is yet to be borne in the cadre. vi. The date of entry in a particular service or the date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing inter se seniority. vii. Seniority cannot be equated within two government servants appointed through two different recruitment drives and appointed on two different dates. 20. Thus in my opinion, the respondent No. 2 committed error of law while placing the petitioner below the private respondents in the gradation list of District Judge (Entry Level). The seniority of the petitioner shall be reckoned from the date of her appointment dated 26.06.2014. 21. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to revise the gradation list accordingly. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE vatti