Seniority-List Objections Must Be Decided by a Reasoned Order Within Four Weeks.

The applicants stated that they were engaged as Multi Purpose Workers (MPWs) in 2003 under SRO 43 of 1994 and also performed the duties of Village Level Workers (VLWs).

In a common VLW/MPW/Gram Sevika seniority list, prepared as of 1 July 2025, their appointment date was recorded as 9 May 2007—the date the J&K Rural Development (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2007 came into force.

They objected to that entry, but the respondents finalized the list by order dated 6 September 2025.

At the hearing, the applicants sought disposal of the application with a direction to treat it as their representation and decide it within a specified period.

The Tribunal also allowed their application to join and pursue the original application together.

1. Whether the applicants’ recorded appointment date in the finalized seniority list should be altered to reflect their asserted engagement in 2003.

2. Whether the original application could be disposed of by directing the respondents to treat it as a representation and decide it by a reasoned order.

The Tribunal did not determine the substantive effect of SRO 43 of 1994 or the J&K Rural Development (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2007 on the applicants’ seniority or appointment date; those provisions were noted as background to the dispute.

No precedent or substantive legal doctrine was cited.

The Tribunal adopted a procedural course of directing the respondents to consider the applicants’ representation and issue a reasoned and speaking order, without adjudicating the merits.

The Tribunal considered that keeping the application pending would serve no useful purpose, particularly because the applicants requested a limited procedural remedy and the respondents’ counsel sought time to file a reply.

It therefore directed the respondents to consider the application as a representation and provide a reasoned decision, leaving the dispute over the correct appointment date and seniority entry unresolved.

The respondents were directed to treat a copy of the application as the applicants’ representation and decide it by a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order, and to communicate that order to the applicants.

No order as to costs was made.