Claim For Seniority Not Maintainable When Transfer Order Expressly Forfeits Prior Service: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a claim for seniority can't be sustained, where the terms of transfer clearly provide that previous service will not be counted for seniority purpose.

Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma: “Once the condition provided that earlier seniority would be forfeited, the claim for seniority in future could not have been made. If such a course is provided it would amount to making ineligible's as eligible and the said post being filled up by a person who would not be eligible at the time of cut of date leading to heart burning”.

Background Facts:

On 04.08.2022, the Himachal Pradesh High Court invited applications for the post of translator from eligible Class-III and Class-IV employees of the Registry. The eligibility criteria required candidates to have at least 5 years of service in the High Court Registry, on the cut-off date of 20.09.2022.

The petitioner, Yashwant Manhodtra, submitted his application, stating that his initial date of joining was 30.12.2016, when he was appointed as a Copyist in the Civil and Sessions Division, Kullu. He was subsequently transferred to the High Court Registry on 02.06.2018.

He contended that in a similar case in Civil and Sessions Division, Solan contractual service of a Junior Office Assistant was considered for service benefits upon his transfer to the High Court Registry.

However, the petitioner's application was rejected at the initial stage itself, even before the departmental examination, on the ground that he had joined the High Court registry when he was transferred on 02.06.2018, and hence did not have requisite 5 years' service on the cut-off date.

The university contended that the principle of estoppel applied against the petitioner as when he was transferred to the High Court, his transfer order specifically stated that his tenure in the Civil and Sessions Division, Kullu would be forfeited, and that he would not be entitled to claim seniority in future based on that service.

Thereafter, the petitioner approached the grievance committee of High Court, which recommended him to be allowed to sit for the written examination based on the decision in the case of Junior Office Assistant in Civil & Sessions Division, Solan. The Acting Chief Justice of the Himachal High Court at that time approved the recommendation of the grievance committee and allowed the petitioner to appear for the examination.

The petitioner appeared for the written test and scored 56 out 90 exams. However, his candidature was challenged by other employees of the registry, as he had not completed 5 years of service in the High Court registry on the cut off date.

Later, when he appeared for the interview, he was declared ineligible as he had not completed the requisite length of service required for the post. Subsequently, he submitted another representation, stating that he is eligible for the post and his previous service in the Civil Court should be counted.

However, when the matter was reconsidered by the then Chief Justice, he ordered for the disqualification of petitioner and appointment of other eligible candidates for the post.

Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking quashing of the selection result for the post of translator and a direction to re-draw the result by considering his candidature.

Findings:

The Court observed that the petitioner's case was accepted by the Grievance Committee based on the decision of an earlier case of Saurabh Kumar. It stated that this recommendation was made without checking the applicable rules or the transfer order of the petitioner, which had clearly stated that the tenure of the petitioner from his service in the Civil Court will not be counted.

The Court stated that allowing the petitioner to count his service from 30.12.2016 to 01.06.2018 would imply giving him seniority from that period, which would unfairly affect other employees who were already in the High Court Registry.

It further noted that as per HP High Court Staff Rules, 2015, only employees with five years of service in the High Court Registry were eligible to apply for the Translator post. However, the petitioner had only four years and a few months of relevant service on the cut-off date.

The Grievance Committee and the Acting Chief Justice mistakenly allowed the petitioner to sit for the exam without considering the rules. So later when objections were raised and reconsidered, the Chief Justice accepted the objections and disqualified the petitioner.

In Commissioner of Municipal Administration & another v/s M.C. Sheela Evanjalin & others, 2020 the Supreme Court held that “mere possessing educational qualifications will not confer right of appointment, whereas the right of a person for consideration ripens into appointment only in case a person is in feeder cadre/grade and fulfils all other terms preceding such appointment as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules”.

The Court held that in this case the petitioner did not meet the five-year service requirement as on the cut-off date and this fact can't be overlooked and eligibility must be assessed strictly as per rules.

Thus, the Court concluded that once the condition provided that earlier senior would be forfeited, the claim for seniority in future could not have been made. Allowing the petitioner would affect other employees would undermine the fairness of the recruitment process under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Name: Yashwant Mandhotra v/s Hon'ble High Court of HP & others

Case No.: CWP No.4241 of 2023

Date of Decision: 06.06.2025

For the petitioner: Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Senior Advocate with Mr.

Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for respondent

No.1. Respondents No. 2 to 4 ex parte.

Click Here To Read/Download Order