Acquiring graduation during service does not alter feeder-cadre seniority absent express statutory rules.

The applicants were Anganwadi Workers in District Ramban. Applicant No. 1 was engaged on 18.10.2008 and was a graduate at the time of engagement, while Applicant No. 2 was engaged on 01.06.2006 and acquired graduation in 2008. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were engaged earlier, on 12.12.1997, and acquired graduation in 2013.

Under SRO 287 dated 26.09.1991, 25% of the posts of Supervisor were to be filled by selection from Graduate Anganwadi Workers possessing the prescribed service qualification.

The applicants relied on Government Order No. 76-SW of 2019, under which seniority of Anganwadi Workers acquiring graduation during service was to be reckoned from the date of acquisition of the higher qualification.

On 27.08.2021, the Mission Director, ICDS issued Order No. 353-MD of 2021 placing Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as In-charge Supervisors. On the same date, a tentative seniority list was issued in which the applicants’ positions were substantially lowered.

The respondents contended that seniority was governed by the date of initial engagement, that acquisition of graduation only determined eligibility for consideration under the Graduate quota, and that the impugned placement was merely temporary and in-charge in nature.

1. Whether the applicants could claim precedence over Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for selection or placement as Supervisors solely because they acquired graduation earlier, despite the respondents’ substantially earlier initial engagement?

2. Whether the placement of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as In-charge Supervisors under Order No. 353-MD of 2021 violated the interim order dated 20.03.2019 restraining promotions under the 25% Graduate quota?

3. Whether the tentative seniority list dated 27.08.2021, which altered the applicants’ positions by reckoning seniority with reference to initial engagement, was liable to be set aside?

The Tribunal applied SRO 287 dated 26.09.1991, which provided for filling 25% of Supervisor posts by selection from Graduate Anganwadi Workers having the prescribed service qualification; graduation was therefore treated as an eligibility condition and not, by itself, as the basis for determining seniority.

It also considered Rule 24 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, under which seniority is generally determined by reference to the date of first appointment in the relevant service, class, or category.

The Tribunal relied on R.B. Desai v. S.K. Khanolker, (1999) 7 SCC 54, and Viman Vaman Awale v. Gangadhar Makhriya Charitable Trust, (2014) 13 SCC 219, for the principle that subsequent acquisition of a higher qualification, though relevant to eligibility for promotion, does not automatically alter seniority in the feeder cadre.

It further treated the High Court’s judgment dated 14.02.2023 on Government Order No. 76-SW of 2019 as binding for determination of the applicable seniority principle.

The Tribunal distinguished between eligibility for promotion and seniority. Although graduation enabled an Anganwadi Worker to be considered under the 25% Graduate quota, the applicants could not establish that acquiring graduation created a new seniority for the Graduate category or displaced seniority earned from initial engagement.

Since Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had entered service in 1997, substantially before the applicants, they ranked senior if seniority was reckoned from initial engagement. The applicants therefore could not obtain precedence merely because they had graduated earlier.

The Tribunal further held that Order No. 353-MD of 2021 did not confer regular or substantive promotion. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were only placed as In-charge Supervisors for administrative exigencies, subject to clearance by the Departmental Selection Committee.

Such a temporary arrangement did not create a vested right to the higher post and was not equivalent to substantive promotion prohibited by the High Court’s interim order.

The seniority dispute had also been the subject of repeated litigation and was subsequently addressed by the High Court’s judgment dated 14.02.2023. The applicants could not use a collateral challenge to the temporary in-charge arrangement to claim a seniority position contrary to the legal position governing the matter.

It clarified that the applicants’ dismissal would not prejudice their right to be considered for regular selection or promotion as Supervisors in accordance with the final seniority list, the applicable Recruitment Rules, and the High Court’s judgment dated 14.02.2023, subject to fulfilment of the eligibility conditions.

It further held that the continued in-charge arrangement of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 would not, by itself, create any right to substantive promotion, which would remain subject to the applicable Rules and consideration by the competent Departmental Selection Committee.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.