Review jurisdiction cannot reconsider request-transfer seniority rules absent an error apparent on the record.

The non-applicants were appointed as Headmasters of Primary Schools on 10 December 2010 and were initially posted in the then Education District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, which formed part of the erstwhile Raipur Revenue District.

After Balodabazar-Bhatapara became a separate district, they were transferred to District Raipur in 2017 on their own request and at their own expense.

Their seniority was initially counted from the date of initial appointment but was subsequently reckoned from the date of transfer/joining in Raipur in the gradation list dated 16 March 2021, placing them below certain employees already serving in Raipur and affecting their promotional prospects.

The non-applicants challenged the gradation list in W.P.(S) No. 2263 of 2021. By order dated 12 February 2025, the writ petition was allowed and the State was directed to prepare a fresh gradation list by reckoning their seniority from 10 December 2010, with consequential benefits.

The State filed the present review petition, alleging that the distinction between administrative transfer and transfer on an employee’s own request, and the applicable executive instructions, had not been properly considered.

Whether the order dated 12 February 2025 contained an error apparent on the face of the record by failing to properly apply the legal consequences of a transfer made on the employees’ own request.

Whether the communication dated 29 January 2009 and circular dated 24 August 1976 justified forfeiture of the non-applicants’ previously acquired seniority upon their inter-district transfer to Raipur.

Whether the subsequent judgment in The Secretary to Government, Department of Health & Family Welfare v. K.C. Devaki, 2025 INSC 389, could constitute a ground for reviewing the earlier order.

Whether the review petition impermissibly sought a rehearing and reconsideration of the merits of the original writ petition.

Review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be exercised as an appeal or rehearing; review lies only for an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter despite due diligence, or another analogous sufficient reason.

An error requiring a long-drawn process of reasoning or reappreciation of the merits is not an error apparent.

K.P. Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala, (2006) 5 SCC 386, recognises that an employee transferred on their own request ordinarily loses seniority up to the date of transfer and is placed below the junior-most employee in the new cadre.

Smt. Reeta Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, W.A. No. 475 of 2015, similarly recognises loss of seniority at the transferred place, while permitting past service to count for eligibility and qualifying service.

Under Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910, executive instructions may supplement statutory rules where the rules are silent, but cannot contradict or override them.

Rule 12 of the Chhattisgarh Services General Conditions of Service Rules, 1961 was relied upon by the non-applicants as the governing seniority provision.

The Court held that the State’s contention was not overlooked in the original writ proceedings.

The order under review had expressly considered the argument that the non-applicants were request transferees and had also considered K.P. Sudhakaran, but concluded that, on the facts and applicable service framework, their transfer did not make them junior to employees already serving in Raipur.

Determining whether the general principle concerning request transfers applied to this cadre, and whether the executive instructions merely supplemented Rule 12 or substantively altered seniority, would require interpretation of the service rules and a fresh examination of the merits.

Such an exercise was beyond review jurisdiction.

Further, K.C. Devaki was delivered after the order sought to be reviewed and could not retrospectively transform a debatable legal interpretation into an error apparent on the face of the record.

The State’s disagreement with the Court’s interpretation, and its apprehension that employees might seek transfers to improve promotional prospects, did not satisfy the legal threshold for review.

The order dated 12 February 2025 in W.P.(S) No. 2263 of 2021 remained undisturbed; accordingly, the authorities were required to reckon the non-applicants’ seniority as Headmasters of Primary Schools from their initial appointment dated 10 December 2010 and grant consequential benefits in accordance with that order.

No order was made as to costs.