Eligibility for inclusion in seniority gradation lists must be determined in accordance with existing rules.

The petitioners were originally appointed as Assistant Teachers and were subsequently promoted to the post of Upper Division Teachers

They challenged a letter dated 07.01.2022 issued by Respondent No. 3 (Divisional Joint Director, Education Division), which sought to prepare a seniority list for various cadres, including Assistant Teacher (LB) and Teacher (LB)

The State had set a five-year experience criterion for inclusion in the gradation list, which was later relaxed to three years

The petitioners contended that the inclusion of the "Teacher (LB)" cadre—a post held by former Shiksha Karmis—in the seniority list for promotion would adversely affect the rights of existing Upper Division Teachers

The petitioners sought a direction for the inclusion of their names in the seniority list and requested liberty to file representations before the respondent authorities

Whether the inclusion of the "Teacher (LB)" cadre in the seniority list would prejudice the promotion prospects and seniority of Upper Division Teachers

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a directive requiring the respondent authorities to consider their eligibility for the gradation list in an objective manner

The Court focused on the administrative obligation of the State to maintain accurate seniority/gradation lists in accordance with established service rules

It applied the principle of administrative exhaustion, allowing petitioners to seek relief through formal representations to the competent authority before the Court adjudicates on the merits of the seniority dispute

The Court emphasized that eligibility for inclusion in the gradation list must be determined strictly according to the "existing rules"

The Court did not rule on the legality of the letter dated 07.01.2022 or the specific placement of the "Teacher (LB)" cadre

Instead, it addressed the petitioners' procedural request for an objective administrative review

The Court reasoned that since the petitioners only sought a limited prayer to represent their case, the most appropriate remedy was to direct the Divisional Joint Director to evaluate the petitioners' grievances

By mandating that the representation be decided in an "objective manner" and within a 90-day timeframe, the Court ensured that the administrative process remains accountable and timely

The Court linked the petitioners' inclusion in the gradation list solely to their eligibility under the "existing rules," thereby preserving the integrity of the statutory framework governing teacher seniority

The Court directed Respondent No. 3 to consider and decide these representations in an objective manner within 90 days of receiving the order

Furthermore, the Court ordered that the authorities must include the petitioners' names in the gradation list if they are found eligible according to the existing rules