SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a Civil Judge (Junior Division) seeking seniority over colleagues appointed under reserved categories, ruling that his higher merit in the selection process did not entitle him to seniority from a date preceding his actual appointment.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani held that seniority under the applicable service rules is determined by the date of first appointment and that a candidate appointed against a vacancy arising from the non-joining of a selected candidate cannot claim seniority retrospectively over those appointed earlier.
The court observed that the petitioner, Mudasir Bashir, was appointed on October 11, 2021, against a vacancy that arose after another selected candidate, Nikita Mahajan, did not join the service. His colleagues, against whom he sought seniority, had been appointed on June 1, 2021, following the original selection process.
“Having been appointed on 11th of October, 2021, the petitioner cannot claim seniority alongside the private respondents who were appointed on 1st of June, 2021, when he had not even been born in the cadre,” the Bench observed.
The judgment was pronounced on November 12, 2026, after the matter had been reserved on November 3, 2026.
Bashir had approached the court challenging an order dated June 7, 2025, rejecting his representation seeking fixation of seniority according to the merit he had secured in the selection process for Civil Judge (Junior Division).
He sought directions to the respondents to redraw the seniority list and place him above respondents 6 to 23, who had been selected under different reserved categories despite securing lower merit points than him.
The recruitment process originated from Advertisement Notification No. PSC/Exam/2018/39 dated May 30, 2018, through which the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (JKPSC) invited applications for 42 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. Of these, 24 posts were earmarked for the open merit category and the remaining 18 for various reserved categories.
Bashir participated in the selection as an open merit candidate and secured the 24th position in the order of merit in the result declared by the Commission on August 22, 2019. His merit points were tied with those of Uzma Amin, who was the last candidate selected under the open merit category.
However, Bashir was not selected as the tie was resolved under Rule 51-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examinations) Rules, 2005, on the basis of the marks obtained in the viva-voce. Uzma Amin had secured more points in the interview.
Aggrieved by the decision, Bashir filed SWP No. 3898 of 2019 before the High Court, challenging, among other things, the validity of Rule 51-A and the Commission’s decision to give precedence to Uzma Amin.
During the pendency of the petition, another selected open merit candidate, Nikita Mahajan, who figured at serial number 14 in the select list prepared through Government Order dated November 20, 2019, opted not to join the service. This resulted in a vacancy becoming available for the next eligible candidate in the waiting list.
Taking note of the development, the High Court disposed of the earlier petition on February 18, 2021, directing the Department of Law to formally approach the Commission within two weeks for forwarding Bashir’s name, along with its recommendations, for appointment against the vacancy arising from Mahajan’s non-joining.
The Commission was also directed to arrange his medical examination and, if he was found fit, recommend his appointment to the Department of Law.
Consequently, the Government approved Bashir’s selection through Government Order No. 3474-JK(LD) of 2021 dated May 20, 2021, followed by his temporary appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division) through Government Order No. 4768-JK(LD) of 2021 dated October 11, 2021.
He subsequently submitted a representation on February 16, 2024, to the Registrar General of the High Court, seeking seniority on the basis of his merit in the original selection process. He argued that his merit points were higher than those of several candidates selected under reserved categories and that he was therefore entitled to placement above them in the seniority list.
The representation was considered by the Administrative Committee, which found the claim untenable in law. The decision taken on December 10, 2024, was subsequently approved by the Full Court in its meeting held on June 6, 2025. The petitioner’s claim was accordingly rejected through the impugned order dated June 7, 2025.
Before the Division Bench, Bashir’s counsel, Shariq Reyaz Jan, assisted by Humaira Sajad, argued that his seniority was required to be determined in accordance with his merit in the selection process under Rule 24(1)(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, read with Rules 39 and 42 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967.
The respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Syed Faisal Qadri, assisted by Mir Mohsin Abbas, while Farhat Riyaz appeared for respondent No. 5 in place of Shah Amir.
Examining the legal provisions, the Bench noted that Rule 39 of the 1967 Recruitment Rules deals with the preparation and publication of the final select list and provides for the forwarding of the waiting list, if any, to the High Court for record.
The court pointed out that Bashir did not figure in the final select list approved and published by the Government. He was selected and recommended for appointment only after a vacancy arose due to Mahajan’s failure to join the service.
It further noted that while the private respondents were appointed on June 1, 2021, after the final select list was operated upon, Bashir was appointed on October 11, 2021, against the subsequently available vacancy.
The Bench then examined Rule 24 of the 1956 Rules, which provides that seniority is determined by the date of first appointment to the relevant service, class, category or grade. The interpretation attached to the rule clarifies that the expression “date of first appointment” means the date of first substantive appointment or the date of first appointment on probation against a clear vacancy.
The court held that Bashir’s first appointment for the purpose of determining seniority was October 11, 2021, and that the date could not be shifted backwards to June 1, 2021, when the private respondents had entered the service.
Rejecting the petitioner’s reliance on clause (b) of the proviso to Rule 24(1), the Bench explained that the provision applies to disputes concerning the inter se seniority of two or more persons appointed to the same service simultaneously.
It observed that the provision determines the relative seniority of direct recruits on the basis of their merit in the competitive examination, but only where the candidates are appointed simultaneously.
“In the present case, the petitioner and the private respondents were neither appointed together nor simultaneously,” the judgment recorded.
The court further clarified that Bashir’s appointment was dependent on a vacancy arising after the original selection process had concluded and the selected candidates had already been appointed. Had Mahajan joined the service, the vacancy would not have arisen and Bashir would not have secured an appointment through the waiting list.
The Bench accordingly held that his higher merit in the selection process could not confer upon him a right to claim seniority over candidates who had entered the service earlier.
“His date of initial appointment cannot be preponed to the date of appointment of the private respondents, as on that date no vacancy in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) was available against which he could have been appointed,” the court observed.
Finding no legal merit in the challenge to the rejection of his representation, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition.
