Finalised seniority lists cannot be disturbed after unreasonable delay without satisfactory explanation.

Ashok Kumar, a direct recruit appointed as Assistant Administrative Officer on 8 May 2003, was placed above Jagadeesh Kumar, an in-service appointee to the same post, in the seniority list finalised in 2004.

That seniority position was acted upon in subsequent promotions, and Jagadeesh raised no objection at the time.

In December 2017, Jagadeesh sought revision of the seniority list; KSRTC revised it in 2019, without giving Ashok notice, and placed Jagadeesh above him.

Ashok successfully challenged the revision in W.P. No. 38852/2019. KSRTC and Jagadeesh appealed against the Single Judge’s judgment dated 9 April 2021.

1. Whether a seniority position finalised in 2004 and acted upon through promotions could be revised in 2019 on the basis of a representation made in 2017, after prolonged inaction by the person seeking revision.

2. Whether the revised seniority could stand where it was made without notice to the employee whose settled seniority was adversely affected.

Under the sit-back principle, an employee may ordinarily rely on a seniority position that has remained settled and been acted upon; challenges to seniority must be brought within a reasonable time.

In Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 84, the Supreme Court grounded this principle in laches, delay, equity and administrative stability.

H.S. Vankani v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 4 SCC 301, Ramaswamy G.T. v. State of Karnataka, (1986) 1 KLJ 1, and Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (2010) 12 SCC 471, support the rule that a long-settled seniority list should not ordinarily be disturbed; Shiba Shankar Mohapatra identifies three to four years as a reasonable period and requires a satisfactory explanation for delay beyond that period.

The principle is not an absolute bar, but a delayed challenge must be satisfactorily explained.

The appeal was brought under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act.

The Court found that the 2004 seniority list placed Ashok above Jagadeesh, was not challenged at the time, and had been acted upon in making promotions.

Jagadeesh’s representation came only in 2017, well beyond the reasonable period discussed in the cited authorities, and the Court found no basis to unsettle the seniority after that delay.

The revision was also made without notice to Ashok, despite adversely affecting his settled seniority.

Accordingly, the Court found no error in the Single Judge’s decision to interfere with the revision.

Both writ appeals were dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of.