Competent authority must hear affected employees and decide seniority-list anomalies by a reasoned order.

The petitioners, working as Teachers (L.B.), were initially appointed as Shikshakarmi Grade-II in 2008 and subsequently absorbed as Teachers (L.B.) with effect from 1 July 2018.

They challenged the promotion order dated 26 December 2025 insofar as it promoted private respondents to the post of Lecturer (Biology) while excluding the petitioners.

The petitioners contended that, although they were placed above the private respondents in the gradation list dated 1 April 2023, the subsequent final combined gradation list dated 6 November 2024 placed the allegedly junior private respondents above them.

Some petitioners had already submitted representations seeking correction of the gradation list, but those representations had not been decided.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to correction of the final combined gradation list dated 6 November 2024 on the ground that allegedly junior employees had been placed above them?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to consequential consideration for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Biology) after determination of any anomaly in the gradation list?

Whether the petitioners should first be required to pursue their seniority grievance through a representation before the competent authority, with notice to all affected parties?

The Court applied the administrative-law principles that a dispute concerning seniority and a gradation list should be examined by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable service rules, after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to all affected employees.

It further applied the requirement that an administrative authority must pass a detailed and reasoned order after considering the parties’ claims and objections.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited or adjudicated upon in the order.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ grievance was essentially directed against the alleged anomaly in the gradation list dated 6 November 2024, which allegedly altered their relative seniority and led to their exclusion from the promotion process.

Since determination of seniority required examination of the relevant service records, the earlier gradation list, the final combined gradation list, and the objections of the employees likely to be affected, the Court did not itself decide the correctness of the seniority position.

Instead, accepting the State’s submission and noting that the private respondents had no objection, it directed the petitioners to submit fresh representations.

The competent authority was required to issue notice to all affected parties, consider their replies, examine the alleged anomaly, and pass a reasoned decision within the prescribed period.

The petitioners were granted liberty to submit fresh representations to the Director of Public Instructions or other competent authority within 20 days from the date of the order.

The authority was directed to notify all affected parties, including the private respondents, consider their objections, and pass a detailed and reasoned order within 90 days from submission of the representations.

If an anomaly was found in the gradation list, the authority was further directed to issue consequential orders in accordance with law.