Seniority counts from the original select list date for candidates appearing in both initial and redone lists.

In 2011, a select list for the posts of Accountants, Deputy Accountants, and Sub-Accountants was challenged and subsequently quashed by the High Court

Following a court-ordered re-evaluation, a new select list was prepared. The appellants were included in this second list for the first time

Meanwhile, another group of candidates, whose names appeared in both the original (quashed) list and the second list, successfully litigated in SCA No. 16290/2016 to have their seniority counted from the date of the first list

This principle was upheld by the Supreme Court

In the present case, the respondents (who were also in both lists) sought similar relief in SCA No. 10963/2020

The learned Single Judge allowed the petition, granting them retrospective seniority

The appellants, claiming their merit-based seniority was displaced without being joined as parties, filed this appeal

1. Whether the appellants (newly added candidates in the second list) have the standing to challenge the seniority granted to the respondents

2. Whether candidates included in both the original quashed list and the subsequent redone list are entitled to seniority from the date of the first list

The Court applied the principle of Stare Decisis and judicial consistency based on the precedent set in SCA No. 16290/2016, which was confirmed in LPA No. 1467/2017 and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 834/2018

This precedent establishes that candidates successfully making it into both the original and redone select lists are entitled to continuity of service and seniority from the date of their initial appointment under the first list

The Court observed that while the appellants were granted leave to appeal because their seniority was affected, their arguments lacked merit due to settled law.

The Court reasoned that the question of continuity of service for candidates appearing in both lists had already been definitively settled by the Supreme Court

The Court noted that the appellants had never challenged the earlier judicial decisions that established this seniority framework

Therefore, the legal principle governing this recruitment process was already "law of the land" regarding this specific dispute, and the respondents were entitled to the same benefits as their "compatriots" who were similarly situated in both lists

The Court dismissed the appeal and the connected application for stay

The court affirmed that the respondents are entitled to seniority from the date of the original select list, even if it affects the seniority of those (like the appellants) who entered the service only through the subsequent redone list