State Cannot Let Bureaucratic Delay Decide a Judge’s Seniority: Supreme Court Grants Retrospective Seniority to Civil Judges Selected in 2003

Right to Appointment Accrued from the Date of High Court’s Order—Delay by State Cannot Prejudice Judicial Officers - In a significant verdict reaffirming the principle that state inaction cannot override judicial rights, the Supreme Court of India directed that two Civil Judges selected in 2003 be granted retrospective seniority over officers appointed later in July 2012.

Justice B.R. Gavai, delivering the judgment along with Justice Augustine George Masih, made it unequivocally clear: “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.”

The Court partially allowed the appeal and held that the appellants’ seniority must date back to a point prior to the induction of the 2012 batch, rectifying an unjust bureaucratic lag.

The appellants had cleared the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission’s Civil Judge recruitment process in 2003, securing marks higher than two women candidates. Yet, due to alleged excess reservation under the women’s quota, they were relegated to the waiting list.

Challenging this, they filed Writ Petition No. 1827 of 2004, which the High Court allowed in May 2012, directing their appointment. However, their actual appointment occurred only on 8 July 2013, despite the 2012 batch being appointed earlier on 10 July 2012.

The controversy centered around whether the seniority of the 2003-selected judges should be reckoned from their appointment in 2013, or retrospectively from 2012, when the High Court had ruled in their favour.

Supreme Court's Reasoning: Rights Cannot Be Defeated by Administrative Inertia

The Court noted that although the High Court in 2012 had clearly ordered the appointment, it did not stay its own judgment, and the State failed to comply promptly. Instead, the government took over a year to actually appoint the appellants.

The Court was categorical: “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… During the said period, the respondent-State could very well have fulfilled the necessary formalities like police verification etc.”

Rejecting the State’s argument that seniority must flow from the actual appointment date (2013), the Court held that: “Such delay by the government must not be permitted to act to the prejudice of those who had already earned their right through judicial process.”

Final Relief: Partial Allowance with Corrective Mandate

The Court acknowledged that the judgment of 2 May 2012 had attained finality, and it would not reopen the question of seniority vis-à-vis officers appointed before that date.

However, it firmly held that the appellants must rank senior to officers of the 2012 batch, observing:

“Undisputedly, the 2012 batch was appointed on 10 July 2012 — more than two months after the High Court’s order in favour of the appellants.”

“We do not find merit in the claim for seniority over those appointed prior to May 2, 2012, but the appellants shall be placed above those who were appointed on 10 July 2012.”

In a verdict that reinforces merit, fairness, and timely execution of judicial directives, the Supreme Court ensured that judicial officers who had fought a long legal battle would not be pushed behind due to state delay.

“It is clear that the State cannot use procedural delay as a tool to defeat rights already recognised by the court.”

This ruling will have a wider ripple effect on service jurisprudence, especially in civil service and judicial appointments, where delays in compliance with court directions often result in irreversible career setbacks.

Date of Decision: April 23, 2025