Seniority Alone Does Not Confer an Enforceable Right to Current Charge of a Higher Post.

The petitioner, an Assistant Professor at Navin Government College, Pachpedi, challenged an order dated 22 September 2026 entrusting respondent No. 3, whom she described as junior to her, with the current charge of Principal and associated financial powers.

She argued that the order overlooked her seniority and eligibility without reasons, and that her representation had not been decided.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that complaints against the petitioner were under examination by a departmental committee and that seniority was not the sole criterion for assigning current charge.

The Court identified no statutory rule or provision requiring that a senior employee be entrusted with the current charge of a higher post as a matter of right. Seniority alone does not confer an indefeasible right to such charge; the competent authority may consider overall suitability, experience, administrative requirements, and other relevant circumstances.

In the absence of a statutory violation, arbitrariness, or mala fides, the Court will not substitute its assessment for that of the competent authority in exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Court held that the petitioner had not established a legal right to the current charge based solely on seniority. It accepted the State’s submission that complaints against her were being examined by a committee and concluded that, in those circumstances, assigning the charge to respondent No. 3 was not arbitrary or illegal merely because the petitioner was senior.

The Court found no basis to interfere under Article 226.

It directed that, if complaints had been made against the petitioner or a committee had been constituted to inquire into them, copies of the complaint(s) and the committee-constituting order be furnished to her within five days of receipt of a copy of the judgment.