Under Rule 14(v), absorbed employees’ seniority is determined from the date the college is taken over.

The petitioner had served as an Assistant Professor at the erstwhile Arts and Commerce Girls College, Raipur, since 16 October 1990, and was later transferred to Government Naveen College, Gudhiyari, without a break in service

The State took over the former college with effect from 21 December 2012 under a Government Order dated 24 September 2013

The petitioner contended that Rule 14(v) of the Chhattisgarh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990, as amended on 13 June 2013, required her seniority to be determined from the takeover date, but her name was omitted from the seniority list issued on 13 November 2024

She sought correction of her seniority, consideration of her representation and consequential consideration for promotion. The State submitted that a fresh representation could be considered in accordance with law

Whether the petitioner’s seniority as an absorbed employee should be determined from the date the college was taken over by the State, and her omission from the seniority list addressed accordingly

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass a reasoned order on her seniority claim

Rule 14(v) of the Chhattisgarh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990, as amended by Gazette Notification dated 13 June 2013, was identified as providing that the seniority of an absorbed employee is determined from the date the college was taken over by the Government

The Government Order dated 24 September 2013 recorded that the college was taken over with effect from 21 December 2012

The Court did not cite or apply any precedent, nor did it finally determine the petitioner’s seniority; it directed the competent authorities to consider her representation under the Rules and pass a reasoned and speaking order

The Court noted that the petitioner’s continuous service, her transfer without break, the college’s takeover date, and the stated effect of Rule 14(v) were not disputed

However, rather than itself altering the seniority list or granting promotion-related relief, the Court acted on the State’s submission that a representation could be considered.

It therefore required the petitioner to submit a representation citing the relevant rules and directed the authorities to decide it in accordance with the 1990 Rules by a reasoned and speaking order

The respondents were directed to consider it in accordance with the 1990 Rules and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a further 40 days from its receipt

The Court did not itself finally determine the petitioner’s seniority or grant consequential promotion or service benefits.