A later divisional-cadre classification permits common seniority despite initial district-cadre appointment.

The applicant was selected and appointed in 2017 as a Junior Health Inspector (Computers) against a District Cadre vacancy.

He challenged the final seniority list dated 30 November 2022, which placed him at Serial No. 17 in a common Divisional list, and sought a district-wise list and a restraint on promotions based on the impugned list.

The respondents maintained that a Divisional list was justified by the promotional cadre under SRO 20 of 1992 and by S.O. 334 dated 13 July 2022, which classified Junior Health Inspector posts as Divisional Cadre posts; they also relied on the candidates’ selection merit.

1. Whether the respondents could prepare a common Divisional seniority list for Junior Health Inspectors despite the applicant’s initial appointment against a District Cadre vacancy.

2. Whether the impugned list was liable to be set aside for applying an allegedly incorrect seniority method or for denying the applicant an adequate opportunity to object.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provided the basis for the application.

The Tribunal treated cadre structure and seniority as governed by the applicable service rules, and observed that the Government may reorganise cadres, subject to the law and protection of legally accrued rights.

It considered SRO 20 of 1992 in relation to the promotional cadre and S.O. 334 dated 13 July 2022, which classified Junior Health Inspector posts as Divisional Cadre posts.

It also referred to Manoj Parihar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, SLP(C) No. 11039 of 2022, for the principle that seniority must follow applicable rules and a legally recognised basis, rather than an arbitrary method.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had entered service against a District Cadre vacancy, but held that this fact alone did not require district-wise seniority to continue after the applicable rules classified the posts as Divisional Cadre posts.

The applicant had not identified a rule requiring separate district-wise lists or shown that the impugned list breached S.O. 334.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had secured fewer marks than the private respondents placed above him and had not shown that a lower-scoring candidate was ranked ahead of him contrary to the applicable rules.

The materials concerning other employee categories did not establish that the same procedure applied to Junior Health Inspectors; nor was breach of a mandatory hearing procedure or resulting prejudice established.

It declined to order a fresh district-wise list or restrain promotions, permitted the respondents to proceed under the applicable recruitment and seniority rules, made no order as to costs, and disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications.