1

CGHC010228342020 2026:CGHC:28796

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 4204 of 2020

Judgment Reserved On : 16.06.2026.

Judgment Delivered On : 10.07.2026.

Ku. Bhuneshwari D/o Madan Singh Thakur Aged About 29 Years

Occupation Service, Posted As Stenographer Hindi Indira Kala

Sangeet University, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

--- Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - The Indira Kala Sangeet University Khairagarh, Through The

Registrar District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

2 - Santosh Shrivas Stenographer, Indira Kala Sangeet University,

Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

3 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Higher

Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner :Shri Siddharth Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondent

No.1/University

:Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate.

For Respondent No.2:Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate.

For State/Respondent

No.3

:Shri Anand Dadariya, Dy AG.

2

WPS No. 8421 of 2023

Santosh Kumar Shriwas S/o Shri Krishna Kumar Shriwas Aged About

29 Years R/o House No. 153, Shivansh Sadan, Ward No. 18, Shiv

Mandir Road, Khairagarh, Police Station Khairagarh District Khairagarh

Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.)

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education

Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya Khairagarh Through The

Registrar, Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya Khairagarh, District

Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.)

3 - The Registrar Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya Khairagarh,

District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.)

4 - Ku. Bhuneshwari D/o Shri Madan Singh Thakur, Aged About 32

Years, Occupation Service, Posted As Stenographer, Indira Kala

Sangit Vishwavidyalaya, Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.)

--- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner :Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate.

For State/Respondent

No.1

:Shri Anand Dadariya, Dy AG.

For Respondent Nos.2

& 3/University

:Ms. Nirumpama Bajpai, Advocate.

For Respondent No.4:Shri Siddharth Pandey, Advocate.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

C A V Order

1.Since both the Writ Petitions have been preferred by the

petitioners claiming seniority and promotion on the basis of one

gradation list, they have been heard together and are being

decided by this common order.

2.For the sake of unambiguity, the petitioners will be referred

3

henceforth as per their initial i.e. Ku. Bhuneshwari and Santosh.

3.For the purposes of disposal, facts pleaded in WPS No.4204 of

2020 will be referred to. An advertisement was issued by the

respondent no. 1 on 20.1.2014 for two posts of Stenographers

out of which, one was reserved for Scheduled Tribes category

and another post was unreserved. The petitioners were called for

ability test on 27.6.2014 and thereafter for interview on 29.6.2014.

Respondent no. 1 without issuing merit list directly issued

appointment order which is evident from order dated 1.6.2020.

The Petitioners were appointed on the post of Stenographer by

respondent no. 1 vide order dated 16.7.2014 for a probation

period of 1 year or maximum extendable for 2 years. It is

submitted that in the said appointment order, name of petitioner-

Ku Bhuneshwari appears at serial no. 1 whereas name of

Santosh is at serial no. 2. Thereafter, the petitioners were made

permanent after completion of probation period on the said post

by respondent no. 1 after the recommendation of working

committee vide order dated 1.9.2015 with effect from 24.7.2015.

Seniority list of Stenographer was issued by the respondent no. 1

on 10.2.2017 whereby petitioner Ku Bhuneshwari was placed at

serial no. 1 and Santosh was placed at serial no. 2. Ku

4

Bhuneshwari made a representation before the respondent no. 1

seeking therein promotion to the post of Personal Assistant to the

Registrar. The problem started after making the above

representation. The respondent no. 1 surprisingly published

seniority list of Personal Assistant to Registrar, Stenographer and

Stenotypist on 29.4.2020 wherein, Ku Bhuneshwari was placed at

serial no. 2 in seniority list of Stenographer without giving any

opportunity of hearing to her. The respondent no. 1 in the

seniority list assigned reasons to place Santosh at serial no. 1 as

he joined the services in forenoon whereas Ku Bhuneshwari

joined her services in the afternoon. Ku Bhuneshwari raised

objection to the gradation list dated 29.4.2020 on the ground that

on 10.2.2017 she was senior to Santosh and after 3 years, she

has been placed at serial no. 2 which is illegal and arbitrary. Ku.

Bhuneshwari also stated that her additional qualification of

Computer Operator and Programming Assistant (COPA) has not

been enlisted in the service book whereas same was filed along

with submission of form against advertisement. Respondent no. 1

decided the objection of the petitioner on 1.6.2020 and rejected

the same on the ground that in gradation list of 13.12.2016 name

of Santosh was at serial no. 1 but due to mistake, in the year

5

2017, Ku Bhuneshwari was placed at serial no. 1. Respondent

no. 1 after realizing the mistake rectified the same on 29.4.2020

and placed Santosh at serial no. 1 and Ku Bhuneshwari at serial

no. 2. Respondent no. 1 also stated that the appointment order

was not issued according to merit list. Further, Santosh joined his

services in forenoon whereas Ku. Bhuneshwari joined services in

afternoon, therefore, Santosh has been placed at serial no. 1 in

gradation list. The Respondent no. 1 has relied on Rule 12(1)(a)

of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Condition of Service)

Rules,1961 (henceforth “Rules, 1961”). Ku. Bhuneshwari filed an

objection on 2.6.2020 against the gradation list dated 29.4.2020

and order dated 1.6.2020 stating that order passed by

Respondent No.1 on 01.06.2020 and gradation list dated

29.04.2020 are contradictory. She also submitted that her name

has been placed at serial no. 2 in the gradation list with an

intention of extending the benefit to Santosh. Respondent no. 1

issued final gradation list on 2.6.2020 and placed Ku.

Bhuneshwari at serial no. 2 in the gradation list whereas Santosh

was placed at serial no. 1. Respondent no. 1 rejected the

objection of the petitioner vide order dated 6.6.2020 on the

ground that the University has jurisdiction to rectify the mistake of

6

seniority list and it has not been done with intention to extend the

benefit to Santosh. Respondent no. 1 further stated that in the

year 2016, Santosh was at serial no. 1 in the gradation list but no

objection was taken by Ku. Bhuneshwari and this mistake has

been rectified on 29.4.2020. The gradation list has been prepared

according to qualification, ability test, experience and marks

obtained in interview. The order of names mentioned in the

appointment order is not conclusive. Soon after finalization of

seniority list, respondent no. 1 issued a notice on 8.6.2020 to

convene meeting of D.P.C. on 9.6.2020 and on said date,

Santosh has been considered for post of Personal Assistant to

the Registrar as promotional post of Stenographer is Personal

Assistant to the Registrar. The decision taken by the committee

has not been approved by the University and meeting in this

regard was scheduled on 13.10.2020. Hence this Petition.

4.Shri Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner- Ku.

Bhuneshwari submits that Bhuneshwari and Santosh were

appointed on the post of Stenographer on the same day i.e.

16.07.2014. According to the said appointment order, Ku.

Bhuneshwari was placed at Serial No.1 and Santosh at Serial

No.2. He submits that both of them were appointed on the basis

7

of their position reflected in the appointment order but in the

gradation list dated 31.07.2015, Santosh was placed at Serial

No.1 and Ku. Bhuneshwari was placed at Serial No.2. In the

gradation list dated 10.02.2017, Ku. Bhuneshwari was placed at

Serial No.1 and Santosh was placed at Serial No.2. In the

gradation list dated 29.04.2020, Santosh Kumar was placed at

Serial No.1 and Ku Bhuneshwari at Serial No.2. In the gradation

list dated 02.06.2020, Santosh was placed at Serial No.1 and Ku.

Bhuneshwari at Serial No.2. But vide gradation list dated

09.06.2023, Ku. Bhuneshwari was placed at Serial No.1 whereas

Santosh was placed at Serial No.2. He further submits that after

completion of 5 years of service, Ku Bhuneshwari moved an

application for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant to

Registrar contending that after 3 years of service, there is

procedure to get promoted to the post of PA to Registrar.

5.Learned counsel for petitioner Ku. Bhuneshwari submits that vide

gradation list 29.04.2020, Santosh Kumar was placed at Serial

No.1 and Ku Bhuneshwari at Serial No.2, being aggrieved of the

same, Ku. Bhuneshwari moved a representation before the

Department. The Department vide order dated 06.06.2020 while

rejecting the claim of Ku. Bhuneshwari contended that

8

erroneously in the gradation list dated 10.02.2017, name of

Santosh was placed at Serial No.2 and name of Ku. Bhuneshwari

was placed at Serial No.1. The said error has been rectified by

way of gradation list dated 29.04.2020. Learned counsel for Ku.

Bhuneshwari submits that gradation lists dated 29.04.2020 and

02.06.2020 are illegal which shows arbitrariness on the

Department’s part as on the basis of recommendations made by

Executive Committee, the appointment was made and Ku.

Bhuneshwari was placed at Serial No.1. He submits that at a later

stage, it cannot be said that due to inadvertence of the

department, wrongly Ku. Bhuneshwari was placed at Serial No.1

in the gradation list dated 10.02.2017.

6.Shri Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner Santosh submits that

Santosh has rightly been placed at Serial No.1 and Ku.

Bhuneshwari at Serial No.2 in the gradation list dated 02.06.2020,

29.04.2020 as earlier in the gradation list dated 10.02.2017,

erroneously Ku. Bhuneshwari was placed at Serial No.1 and

Santosh at Serial No.2. However, he submits that in the gradation

list dated 09.06.2023, Ku. Bhuneshwari has been placed at Serial

No.1 and Santosh has been placed at Serial No.2, which is

erroneous as right from the appointment in gradation list dated

9

31.07.2015, 04.10.2016, 29.04.2020, 02.06.2020 till issuance of

impugned gradation list dated 09.06.2023, Santosh was being

placed at Serial No.1 whereas Ku. Bhuneshwari at Serial No.2.

7.Ms. Bajpai, learned counsel for Respondent- University submits

that from the perusal of appointment order, Ku. Bhuneshwari has

been placed at Serial No.1 and Santosh at Serial No.2. However,

subsequently Ku. Bhuneshwari has been placed at Serial No. 2

and Santosh at Serial No.1. She further submits that on the basis

of meeting of executive committee dated 01.03.2023, the said

error has been corrected and Ku Bhuneshwari has been placed

at Serial No.1 and Santosh at Serial No.2, which is in accordance

with law. She submits that the University will comply with any

directions issued by this Court.

8.Learned State counsel submits that so far as petitioners are

concerned, their seniority and promotion will be governed as per

The Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service)

Rules, 1961. As per which, the seniority of the petitioners will be

determined on the basis of order of merit in which they are

recommended for merit.

9.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record, this Court proceeds to determine the controversy relating

10

to the inter se seniority of the petitioners.

10.Rule 12 (1) (a) of the Rules, 1961 provides for:

12. Seniority.- The seniority of the members of a service or

a distinct branch or group of posts of that service shall be

determined in accordance with the following principles,

viz.,-

(1) Seniority of Direct Recruitment and Promotees. -

(a) The seniority of persons 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 the date of joining. Persons

appointed as a result of an earlier selection shall be senior

to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection.

11.The admitted facts reveal that both the petitioners were appointed

as Stenographers pursuant to the same selection process by a

common appointment order dated 16.07.2014. In the said

appointment order, the name of petitioner Ku. Bhuneshwari

appears at Serial No.1 whereas the name of petitioner Santosh

appears at Serial No.2. Initially, different gradation lists came to

be issued by the respondent-University placing the petitioners at

different positions. While the gradation list dated 10.02.2017

reflected Ku. Bhuneshwari as senior, the subsequent gradation

lists dated 29.04.2020 and 02.06.2020 placed Santosh above her

on the ground that he had joined duties in the forenoon whereas

11

Ku. Bhuneshwari joined in the afternoon. Subsequently, by

gradation list dated 09.06.2023, the University again restored Ku.

Bhuneshwari to Serial No.1.

12.The sole question that falls for consideration is whether the

respondent-University was justified in altering the seniority of the

petitioners by relying upon the time of joining and by treating the

earlier gradation list as erroneous.

13.It is well settled that claims related to seniority must be raised

promptly. Delay defeats equity, particularly in service matters

where others’ rights may be adversely affected.

14.It is a well-established proposition in service jurisprudence that

the right to seniority is not a fundamental right. However, seniority

constitutes a vital aspect of a civil right arising from statutory

rules, administrative instructions, or service regulations governing

the terms and conditions of employment in public service. While

the denial or fixation of seniority may not ipso facto invoke the

violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 or 16, any action

relating to alteration, refixation, or revision of seniority must

nonetheless conform to the principles of natural justice and

procedural fairness. Whenever a representation is made

challenging the seniority position of an employee, particularly one

12

that seeks to disturb an existing gradation list, it is imperative that

all persons likely to be adversely affected by such representation

are treated as necessary and proper parties to the proceedings.

The competent authority, even in the realm of administrative

decision-making, is duty-bound to issue notice and provide an

opportunity of hearing to those individuals whose seniority may

be impacted as a consequence of any proposed revision. Failure

to do so results in a clear violation of audi alteram partem, a

cardinal principle of natural justice. A gradation list or seniority

list, once finalized and acted upon, attains a degree of finality and

cannot be unsettled casually or unilaterally, especially not to the

prejudice of those who were not given an opportunity to contest

or respond. Any administrative or judicial order affecting the inter

se seniority of civil servants without impleading or hearing the

affected parties is liable to be quashed on the ground of

procedural impropriety and violation of natural justice, regardless

of the merits of the underlying claim. Moreover, in service law, the

re-fixation of seniority must adhere strictly to the applicable

service rules such as Rule 12(1)(a) of the Rules, 1961, and no

executive authority can bypass the statutory safeguards or due

process merely on grounds of administrative convenience.

13

Accordingly, any disturbance in the settled seniority position or

alteration in the gradation list without putting affected employees

on notice, allowing them to present their case, and duly

considering their submissions, would render the action legally

unsustainable and vitiated.

15.A plain reading of the Rule 12 leaves no manner of doubt that in

the case of direct recruitment, seniority is to be determined solely

on the basis of the order of merit in which the candidates are

recommended for appointment. The Rule expressly excludes the

relevance of the date of joining and, therefore, the time of joining

on the same day cannot be a criterion for determining inter se

seniority.

16.The respondent-University sought to justify the impugned

gradation lists by contending that Santosh joined duties in the

forenoon whereas Ku. Bhuneshwari joined in the afternoon and

that the gradation list dated 10.02.2017 contained a clerical

mistake. Such justification cannot be accepted.

17.Firstly, Rule 12(1)(a) specifically mandates that seniority shall be

determined irrespective of the date of joining. Consequently, the

distinction sought to be drawn on the basis of joining in the

14

forenoon or afternoon is wholly alien to the statutory rule and

cannot legally determine seniority.

18.Secondly, although the respondent-University has pleaded that

the appointment order was not issued according to the order of

merit and that an inadvertent mistake had occurred, no

contemporaneous record, namely, the select list, merit list,

proceedings of the Selection Committee or recommendation of

the Selection Committee, has been placed before this Court to

establish that Santosh had secured a higher position in the merit

list than Ku. Bhuneshwari. A mere assertion that the appointment

order was not arranged according to merit cannot displace the

statutory presumption arising from the appointment order itself.

19.On the contrary, the appointment order dated 16.07.2014, which

is the foundational document of appointment, places Ku.

Bhuneshwari at Serial No.1 and Santosh at Serial No.2. In the

absence of any material demonstrating that the order of names in

the appointment order was inconsistent with the recommendation

of the Selection Committee, the said appointment order

constitutes the best available evidence regarding the order in

which the candidates were recommended and appointed.

15

20.It is also significant that after issuance of the impugned gradation

lists, the respondent-University itself, by gradation list dated

09.06.2023 issued pursuant to the decision of the Executive

Committee dated 01.03.2023, restored the position by placing Ku.

Bhuneshwari at Serial No.1 and Santosh at Serial No.2. The

stand taken by the University before this Court also supports the

said position. This subsequent action further indicates that the

impugned gradation lists dated 29.04.2020 and 02.06.2020

cannot be sustained.

21.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the respondent-University committed a manifest error

in determining the inter se seniority of the petitioners on the basis

of the time of joining and in altering the seniority without any

material showing that Santosh had secured a higher place in the

order of merit. Such action is contrary to Rule 12(1)(a) of the

Rules, 1961 and is, therefore, unsustainable.

22.Accordingly, all the gradation lists in which Santosh has been

placed at the rank above Ku. Bhuneshwari particularly dated

29.04.2020 and 02.06.2020, insofar as they related to present

petitioners, are hereby quashed. The gradation lists which places

Ku. Bhuneshwari in the rank above than Santosh particularly

16

dated 09.06.2023 is held to be in consonance with Rule 12(1)(a)

of the Rules, 1961 and shall govern the inter se seniority of the

parties.

23.The respondent-University is directed to accord all consequential

service benefits flowing from the above determination, including

consideration of Ku. Bhuneshwari for promotion to the post of

Personal Assistant to the Registrar, if otherwise eligible, from the

date her immediate junior was considered or promoted. If found

fit, she shall be granted notional promotion with continuity of

seniority and all consequential benefits in accordance with law.

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

24.Both the writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. No

order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge

Avinash

17

The date when the

judgment is

reserved

The date when

the judgment is

pronounced

The date when the judgment is

uploaded on the website

Operative Full

16.06.2026 10.07.2026 ------ 10.07.2026