Case Note & Summary
The writ petition challenged the selection list dated 20.12.2019 and office order dated 31.12.2019 issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gondia, to the extent that respondent Nos.2 to 4 were selected and appointed as Bailiffs by promotion. Eight Peons working in the District Court, Gondia, alleged that the selection process violated the seniority-cum-merit principle and that respondent Nos.2 to 4 were juniors and did not possess the requisite three years' service on the date of notice. The Principal District Judge defended the process as having followed Paragraphs 577(3) and 580 of the Civil Manual and selected candidates with highest marks. Notice dated 04.09.2019 invited applications for five vacant Bailiff posts, with last date 21.09.2019. Written examination was held on 13.12.2019; the Advisory Committee fixed benchmark 60 out of 100 and minimum 8 marks. On 20.12.2019, the Committee selected six candidates with highest marks, and office order was issued on 31.12.2019. Petitioners made representation, which was not considered. The High Court initially indicated dismissal on 25.10.2023, but on noticing non-compliance with Civil Manual, listed the matter for reconsideration on 30.10.2023 and heard arguments. The court framed two issues: whether the seniority-cum-merit principle and law in Rajendra Kumar Srivastava were followed, and whether selection of junior candidates with highest marks ignoring benchmark-qualified senior candidates was justified. The court referred to Rajendra Kumar Srivastava v. Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank, AIR 2010 SC 699, which held that seniority-cum-merit requires assessing minimum necessary merit and then promoting strictly in order of seniority. Reproducing Paragraph 580 of Civil Manual, the court noted that vacancies to be filled by promotion require considering thrice the number of eligible employees according to seniority, and reasons must be recorded if promotions are not according to seniority. The court rejected the petitioners' eligibility challenge against respondent Nos.3 and 4, finding they completed three years' service prior to 09.09.2019. However, it observed that for five notified vacancies, only fifteen eligible employees should have been considered, but nineteen appeared and six were selected without any notice or recorded reasons. The court stated it was incumbent on the Committee to assign reasons for selecting six instead of five. The provided excerpt ends at paragraph 16 with this observation; the final operative order is not included in the excerpt.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Seniority-cum-Merit Principle - Civil Manual, Paragraph 580 - Promotion to Bailiff post must be on seniority-cum-merit, not merit alone; District Judge required to consider thrice the number of eligible employees according to seniority before filling vacancies; Court found selection of six candidates against five notified vacancies and selection based on highest marks violated this principle; Held that seniority-cum-merit requires assessment of minimum necessary merit and then promotion strictly in order of seniority (Paras 11-13,15). B) Service Law - Promotion - Minimum Qualifying Marks and Benchmark - Civil Manual, Paragraph 580 read with Rajendra Kumar Srivastava - Advisory Committee had fixed benchmark 60/100 and minimum 8 marks in written test, but selected candidates with highest marks ignoring seniority; Held that prescribing minimum qualifying marks is permissible to ascertain minimum necessary merit, but after qualifying, promotion must follow seniority; Committee's action of selecting juniors with highest marks was inconsistent with seniority-cum-merit (Paras 5,10-12). C) Service Law - Promotion - Eligibility of Candidates - Civil Manual, Paragraphs 577 and 578 - Petitioners challenged eligibility of respondent Nos.3 and 4 for not completing three years' service on date of notice; Court found they completed three years prior to 09.09.2019 and last date for application was 21.09.2019, so they were eligible; Held objection without substance (Para 14). D) Service Law - Promotion - Number of Vacancies and Requirement of Reasons - Civil Manual, Paragraph 580(ii)(a) and (d) - Notice invited applications for five vacancies, requiring consideration of fifteen eligible employees, but nineteen appeared and six were selected without any notice or recorded reasons; Court observed this was contrary to Paragraph 580; Held it was incumbent on Committee to assign reasons for selecting six instead of five (Paras 15-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Principal District Judge and Advisory Committee were justified in non-observing the principle of seniority-cum-merit as laid down in Rajendra Kumar Srivastava; whether the Principal District Judge was justified in ignoring selection and appointment of candidates who achieved the benchmark with minimum 8 marks in written examination in merit list instead of junior candidates who obtained highest marks
Law Points
- Seniority-cum-merit principle requires assessment of minimum necessary merit followed by promotion strictly in order of seniority
- District Judge must consider thrice the number of eligible employees according to seniority for promotion vacancies
- reasons must be recorded if promotion not according to seniority
- minimum qualifying marks may be prescribed but cannot override seniority after qualifying
- selection based solely on highest marks violates Paragraph 580 of Civil Manual
