Seniority Must Be Governed by Recruitment Rules and Appointment Dates, Not Sequential Advertisement Notifications

The J Service Selection Board (JKSSRB) issued Advertisement No. 01 of 2013 for the post of Demonstrator, Computer Engineering

Subsequently, Advertisement No. 05 of 2015 was issued for the same post

For both notifications, a common objective-type written test and interview were conducted

The private respondents (appointed under the 2013 notice) and the applicants (appointed under the 2015 notice) were all appointed between February and March 2018

In the final seniority list issued via Order No. 194 of 2021, the applicants were placed below the private respondents, with the department noting that "Notification No. 2013 supersedes 2015"

The applicants challenged this, asserting they possessed higher merit and that seniority should be governed by appointment dates and merit, not advertisement dates

1. Whether the seniority of candidates selected through a common recruitment process for multiple advertisement notifications should be determined based on the date of the advertisement or the date of appointment and merit

2. Whether the impugned seniority list (Order No. 194 of 2021) violates Rule 24 of the J Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956

The court primarily applied Rule 24 of the J Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, which mandates that seniority is determined by the date of first substantive appointment

It further relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Bhey Ram Sharma Ors. v. Haryana State Electricity Board, establishing that the date of appointment is the critical factor in determining seniority

Crucially, it applied the J High Court precedent in Saqib Saleem Ors. v. State of J, which held that when a single common entrance test/interview is held for multiple advertisement years, preparing a seniority list based on advertisement cycles rather than merit and appointment date is illegal and violative of Rule 24

The Tribunal observed that since a common written test and interview were conducted for candidates from both the 2013 and 2015 advertisements, the recruitment process was unified

The Tribunal reasoned that under Rule 24, seniority must be based on the date of appointment, and where appointments are simultaneous, it must be determined by the position attained in the order of merit at the time of competitive examination

The official respondents’ justification—that the 2013 notification "supersedes" the 2015 notification—was found to be inconsistent with established law

Following the Saqib Saleem precedent, the court noted that categorizing seniority based on the year of advertisement when the selection process was combined is impermissible and discriminatory

The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. with a direction to the official respondents to "relook" into the impugned seniority list in light of the cited legal principles. The respondents are ordered to hear both the applicants and private respondents and pass a speaking order within eight weeks; until such order is passed, the impugned seniority list shall not be given effect regarding these parties