Supreme Court Dismisses Judicial Officer's Article 32 Petition Challenging Seniority List

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a judicial officer from Madhya Pradesh, who is set to retire on May 31, 2022, raising a seniority dispute.

While refusing to entertain the grievance on the count of seniority at a belated stage, the Supreme Court has observed that the mere filing of a representation cannot obviate the delay of well over 19 years of taking recourse to the remedy for the assertion of rights.

The Bench was considering a writ petition filed by a judicial officer arguing that she is losing out on three years of seniority and also chance of being considered for elevation to the High Court due to the incorrect list made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The Bench observed that seniority is one element which is borne into mind in considering a judicial officer for elevation to the High Court, along with other relevant considerations including merit and the record of service.

The Bench noted that the petitioner was aware of the fact that seniority was fixed with reference to 5 July 2002, which is the date of entry into the Higher Judicial Service.

"On the record as it stands and since the issue of seniority has also been dealt with above, we see no reason to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly dismissed", the Bench said.

"The petitioner was aware of the fact that seniority was fixed with reference to 5 July 2002, which is the date of entry into the Higher Judicial Service. The mere filing of a representation cannot obviate the delay of well over 19 years of taking recourse to the remedy for the assertion of rights. Hence, the grievance on the count of seniority cannot be entertained at this belated stage".

The writ petition sought directions to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to correct/rectify its seniority gradation list in accordance with the law laid down by Supreme Court in in the judgment of R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

According to the Petitioner, on account of the High Court's delay in conducting the exam and declaring result is losing of seniority of three years and her chance of being considered for elevation to the High Court.

The petitioner submitted that she joined the Higher Judicial Services in 2002, after acing the exam conducted for filling vacancies that arose and were advertised for in 1999. The written exam for the 1999 notification, was conducted after a delay of two years in 2001 and the results were announced after a further delay of eight months in 2002. During 1999 to 2002, i.e., before declaration of result for exam conducted for direct recruitment to HJS, the Respondent promoted, serving judicial officers, by way of regular promotions in 1999,2000 and 2002.

According to the petition, these regular promotees, despite the annual quota of 25% reserved for direct recruits in HJS, were kept above the direct recruits, such as the Petitioner, in the seniority gradation list. Due to this currently, the judicial officers, promoted in 1999, 2000 and 2002 to HJS have been kept above the Petitioner and other direct recruits in the seniority gradation list. Thus, the Petitioner on account of the Respondent's delay in conducting the exam and declaring result is losing of seniority of three years and her chance of being considered for elevation to the High Court.

Case Details: Shobha Porwal vs The Hon'ble High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, WP(C) 920/2021 

Click here to read/download the order