Authorities must correct mutual-transfer seniority and consider the employee for promotion before finalizing the list.

The petitioner, a primary teacher, was initially appointed in Zilla Parishad Ratnagiri and subsequently came to Nashik Zilla Parishad through a mutual inter-district transfer on 24 July 2015.

His service records reflected 24 July 2015 as the relevant date for seniority, although the Teacher Transfer Management System recorded his Nashik joining/seniority date as 12 January 2009.

In connection with preparation of a seniority list for promotion to Vistar Adhikari (Shikshan), Class III, Grade III and Headmaster, the petitioner sought correction of his date of appointment.

On 1 June 2026, the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Yeola, determined his seniority date as 12 January 2009 under the applicable mutual-transfer rules and directed that the corresponding service-book entry be made.

The petitioner thereafter requested correction of the promotion records before finalisation of the seniority list on 15 June 2026.

The Zilla Parishad opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had not objected by the alleged cut-off date of 19 May 2026 and that the correction could be considered only in the next seniority list.

The petitioner therefore sought correction of his service records and inclusion in the seniority list with effect from 12 January 2009.

1. Whether the respondents were required to correct the petitioner’s date of appointment/seniority in the Nashik Zilla Parishad records from 24 July 2015 to 12 January 2009 in view of the order dated 1 June 2026?

2. Whether the petitioner’s objection and request for correction, made before publication/finalisation of the seniority list on 15 June 2026, could be rejected on the ground that it was not submitted by 19 May 2026?

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to have his name included in the seniority list for promotion by treating his relevant seniority date as 12 January 2009?

The Court applied Rule 8(2) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, which provides that an employee appointed through mutual transfer may either retain seniority from the former Zilla Parishad or adopt the seniority date of the employee against whose post the transfer was made, whichever is earlier.

The Court also relied on the principles reflected in the Government Resolution dated 28 January 2019 concerning determination of seniority in cases of mutual inter-district transfer.

It further applied the express terms of the Zilla Parishad’s communication dated 15 June 2026, under which objections received up to the date of publication/finalisation of the final seniority list were to be incorporated.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon.

The Court held that the respondents had adopted an erroneous cut-off date of 19 May 2026.

The communication dated 15 June 2026 expressly contemplated consideration of objections received up to the date of publication of the final seniority list, and the petitioner had sought correction and obtained the BDO’s order dated 1 June 2026 before that list was finalised.

Under Rule 8(2), the petitioner was entitled to the earlier applicable seniority date arising from the mutual transfer, and the BDO had consequently determined his seniority as 12 January 2009 and directed corresponding service-book changes.

The respondents’ refusal to give effect to that determination was also inconsistent: their affidavit stated both that the petitioner could not be considered in the existing lists and that he could be considered if he objected before finalisation of the next list.

Since the petitioner had raised the objection before finalisation of the 15 June 2026 list, excluding him on the basis of the artificial 19 May cut-off was held arbitrary and unsustainable.

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to correct the petitioner’s Nashik Zilla Parishad appointment date from 24 July 2015 to 12 January 2009, consistently with the order dated 1 June 2026.

They were further directed to modify the seniority list dated 15 June 2026, include the petitioner’s name, and consider his seniority from 12 January 2009 rather than 24 July 2015.

The directions were to be complied with within two weeks from the date on which the judgment was made available.

The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

The operative direction at paragraph 14(i) records “12 June 2009,” whereas the judgment’s reasoning, reliefs and the BDO’s order consistently refer to “12 January 2009.”