Settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a long lapse of time to unsettle accrued promotional rights.

The Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 were appointed as Lower Division Clerks on 11.03.1987, with the Petitioner placed higher in the initial merit list.

While the Petitioner was promoted to Upper Division Clerk in 1996 and Assistant Grade-I in 2003, Respondent No. 4 cleared the mandatory "Accounts Training" earlier and was promoted to Junior Accounts Officer (JAO) on 13.06.2007.

Following a representation, a Review DPC granted the Petitioner a retrospective promotion to JAO from the same date (13.06.2007), and he was shown as senior to Respondent No. 4 in the 2012 gradation list.

However, on 23.08.2023, Respondent No. 2 issued an order restoring Respondent No. 4’s seniority over the Petitioner, citing the Petitioner's lack of Accounts Training at the time of the original promotion.

Respondent No. 4 has since retired from service.

Whether the respondent authority could legally disturb a settled seniority position after a lapse of nearly ten years.

Whether the requirement of "Accounts Training" and the amended Rule 12(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Rules justified granting seniority to a junior appointee who qualified earlier.

The Court primarily applied Rule 12(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, regarding the determination of seniority based on qualifications.

It further relied on the principles established by the Supreme Court in *V. Vincent Velankanni v. Union of India* (2024), which mandates that seniority should be reckoned from the date of initial appointment according to rules.

Additionally, the court applied the "settled seniority" doctrine from *Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn.* and *Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza v. Union of India*, which establishes that seniority settled for a long duration should not be reopened to avoid administrative instability.

The Court observed that while the Petitioner was initially senior, Respondent No. 4 had fulfilled the essential eligibility criteria (Accounts Training) for the JAO post before the Petitioner.

The respondent authorities had reassessed the seniority based on the amended Rule 12(b) of the 1961 Rules, which prioritized qualified individuals in that specific cadre.

However, the Court noted that the 2023 impugned order attempted to unsettle a seniority position that had been reflected in gradation lists for over a decade.

Applying the *Velankanni* precedent, the Court reasoned that raking up old seniority disputes after such a long interval creates administrative complications and violates the sense of security a public servant is entitled to regarding their rank.

Given that Respondent No. 4 had already retired, the dispute was largely academic and did not warrant a reversal of the Petitioner's long-standing status.

The Court held that reopening the seniority dispute after a decade was unjust and contrary to settled service jurisprudence.

It directed the respondent authorities to consider the Petitioner’s case for all consequential and future service benefits as if the seniority dispute had no adverse impact, ensuring his career progression remains undisturbed.

The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.