State Cannot Repeatedly Alter Seniority After Finalization: Allahabad High Court Quashes Government Order Revising Promotion Date

Once Seniority is Settled and Promotions Granted, It Cannot Be Arbitrarily Reversed by the Government – In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court quashed the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to revise the seniority of 144 Review Officers by changing their promotion date from June 30, 2016, to July 13, 2016. The Court held that once a seniority list is finalized after due process and objections are settled, the State has no authority to alter it arbitrarily years later.

"When the government itself ratifies a seniority list multiple times, it cannot turn around after years and claim that the initial decision was incorrect. Such repeated interference shakes the foundation of service stability and the rule of law," the High Court observed.

The case arose from the dispute between promoted Review Officers and directly recruited Review Officers of the 2013 batch, regarding their seniority in the Uttar Pradesh Secretariat Administration Department.

The petitioners, who were originally appointed as Junior Grade Clerks in 1990 and later promoted to Assistant Review Officers in 2005, were considered for promotion to the post of Review Officer in the selection year 2015-16. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met on June 30, 2016, to finalize their promotions, which were later approved by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission on July 8, 2016. The final promotion orders were issued on July 13, 2016, but with retrospective effect from June 30, 2016, ensuring their placement within the 2015-16 recruitment year.

Objections were raised by direct recruits of the 2013 batch, who claimed that the promotees should not have been granted seniority from a back date when their promotion orders were issued later. Despite repeated challenges, the State government upheld the seniority of the promotees three times—in 2016, 2019, and 2022—rejecting the objections of direct recruits.

"Once a government decision has been affirmed multiple times, subject to scrutiny and procedural checks, it cannot be reopened arbitrarily after seven years," the Court stated.

Government’s Sudden Change of Stand and Court’s Criticism
On August 9, 2023, the State government suddenly issued an order modifying the petitioners' promotion date from June 30, 2016, to July 13, 2016, effectively pushing them into the next recruitment year (2016-17) and lowering their seniority. This decision resulted in the direct recruits of the 2013 batch being placed above them in the revised seniority list issued on September 6, 2023.

The High Court strongly criticized the State government’s actions, noting that: "The State cannot alter a settled seniority list after seven years simply because a new administration deems the earlier decision incorrect. Stability in service law requires that once promotions and seniority are granted and acted upon, they must not be disturbed without compelling reasons."

The Court rejected the government's argument that promotions could not be made effective from a back date, pointing out that Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991, specifically allows for backdated appointments.

"If the rules themselves permit retrospective promotions, and the government followed this process lawfully in 2016, the subsequent revision of seniority in 2023 is without jurisdiction," the Court observed.

Res Judicata and the State’s Lack of Authority to Reopen Settled Matters
The High Court emphasized that the issue of seniority had already been settled through multiple rounds of government review, making the 2023 revision legally untenable under the doctrine of res judicata.

"When a matter has been conclusively decided through a reasoned administrative process, it cannot be reopened without statutory authority. The doctrine of res judicata prevents repeated litigation over the same issue, ensuring finality in administrative decisions," the Court held.

Citing Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mawasi (2012) AIR SCW 4222, the Court reiterated: "The power of review is a creature of statute. No authority—judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative—can review its own decisions unless explicitly empowered by law."

It further relied on Swamy Atmananda v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam (2005) 4 SCC 472, which held that: "Once a government order regarding seniority is final, no party can be permitted to reopen it in subsequent litigation unless fresh cause of action arises or higher judicial review directs otherwise."

The High Court rejected the government's claim that it could rectify errors at any stage, stating that procedural fairness and vested rights of employees prevent arbitrary reversals.

Supreme Court’s Precedents on Retrospective Promotions and Seniority
The government relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in P. Sudhakar Rao v. U. Govind Rao (2013) 8 SCC 693, which held that retrospective promotions should not be granted from a date when the employee was not even "born in the cadre."

However, the High Court distinguished the case, pointing out that the Supreme Court in Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh (2011) 3 SCC 267 had clarified: "Notional seniority may not be ordinarily granted from a backdate, but if it is done, it must be based on objective considerations and be traceable to statutory rules. If such conditions are met, retrospective promotions are legally valid."

Applying this principle, the High Court ruled: "The promotions of the petitioners were made under the clear provisions of Rule 8 of the Seniority Rules, 1991, and were in line with the objective of completing promotions within the recruitment year 2015-16. There was neither arbitrariness nor illegality in granting them seniority from June 30, 2016."

Government Order Quashed, Seniority Restored
Striking down the government’s order dated August 9, 2023, and the subsequent seniority revision on September 6, 2023, the High Court restored the petitioners' seniority from June 30, 2016, directing the government to act in accordance with the earlier finalized lists.

"When a seniority list is repeatedly affirmed and acted upon, it creates a vested right in favor of the employees. The government cannot unsettle such rights arbitrarily, especially when its own actions over the years have reinforced the legitimacy of the original decision," the Court concluded.

The Allahabad High Court’s ruling reinforces the importance of stability in service law and the limited scope of administrative review over settled seniority disputes. By quashing the government’s attempt to revise seniority after seven years, the Court has reaffirmed that retrospective promotions, if granted under statutory rules, cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn at a later stage.

This judgment serves as a precedent for public servants facing arbitrary alterations to seniority lists and ensures that administrative decisions, once finalized and acted upon, remain legally binding unless overturned through proper judicial channels.
 

Date of Decision: 24 February 2025