Contractual engagement does not confer seniority; substantive appointment governs inter se seniority.

The applicant, Vikram Singh Langeh, was initially engaged as a Patwari on a contractual basis in the Irrigation and Flood Control Department in 2009.

His services were subsequently regularized on February 22, 2018.

Following regularization, a tentative seniority list was issued in September 2018, placing the applicant at Serial No. 31, based on initial engagement date, regularization date, and age.

A later tentative seniority list issued on March 12, 2020, downgraded his position to Serial No. 49.

Aggrieved, the applicant filed objections, arguing his seniority should be determined from his initial contractual appointment date of July 2, 2009, citing the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010.

The department then issued a revised seniority list on July 16, 2020, followed by a final seniority list on August 24, 2020, placing the applicant at Serial No. 47.

The applicant challenged this final seniority list, contending that his initial contractual service was ignored, and juniors were placed above him, adversely affecting his promotional prospects to Girdawar and violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The respondents maintained that the final seniority list was prepared strictly in accordance with applicable rules, specifically SRO 180 of 1997 and Rule 24 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, which mandate seniority from the date of first substantive appointment, not contractual engagement.

Whether the final seniority list dated August 24, 2020, is contrary to the governing service rules and should be quashed.

Whether the applicant's initial contractual engagement in 2009 must count for the determination of inter se seniority upon regularization.

Whether the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, overrides the cadre-specific seniority rules in this case to allow seniority from initial contractual appointment.

Whether the shift in the applicant's position from an earlier tentative seniority list to the final list constitutes a violation of his rights.

Whether the respondents' actions in preparing the seniority list amount to arbitrariness, hostile discrimination, or mala fides in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The court primarily applied Rule 24 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, which, as referenced by SRO 180 of 1997, stipulates that seniority in service, class, category, or grade is determined by the date of "first substantive appointment".

This rule distinguishes a substantive appointment, which formally inducts a person into a regular cadre, from a casual, contractual, or fortuitous engagement that does not confer a vested right to claim seniority over those substantively appointed earlier.

The court also noted that while the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, mentions seniority for regularized employees being relatable to initial appointment on an ad hoc, contractual, or consolidated basis, this general provision does not automatically nullify specific cadre-based seniority rules unless its direct and controlling application is demonstrated.

The court further held that tentative seniority lists create no indefeasible rights and can be revised.

The court analyzed the applicant's claim that his contractual engagement should be considered for seniority against the specific rules governing seniority.

It determined that the applicant's foundational assumption—that contractual engagement counts for inter se seniority after regularization—was legally unsound.

The court emphasized that seniority is determined strictly by statutory rules, and the applicable Rule 24 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, mandated "first substantive appointment" as the basis for seniority, explicitly excluding contractual or stop-gap engagements.

The court reasoned that a contractual appointment is temporary and does not, by itself, confer a vested right to claim seniority over those substantively inducted earlier.

While acknowledging the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate its direct and controlling application to his specific cadre dispute in a manner that would override the established seniority rule.

The court also dismissed the significance of the applicant's higher placement in an earlier tentative list, explaining that tentative lists are provisional and subject to revision.

It found the allegations of "blue-eyed persons" and mala fides unsupported by material particulars, stating that such serious allegations require evidence.

Lastly, the Tribunal concluded that the alleged non-consideration of objections or the applicant's dissatisfaction with his placement did not, by itself, render the seniority list unlawful if it was framed in accordance with governing rules, thus Articles 14 and 16 were not attracted.

It held that the impugned final seniority list dated August 24, 2020, could not be faulted on the grounds urged by the applicant.

The applicant failed to establish any enforceable legal right to claim placement above the respondents who were senior based on substantive entry into the cadre.

The court found no clear breach of statutory rules or manifest perversity warranting judicial interference with the finalized seniority list.