Wrongfully excluded candidates are entitled to notional seniority from the appointment date of the same selection process.

The applicant applied pursuant to Notification No. 06-PSC of 2008 for the post of Lecturer, Computer Science (10+2), against an ST-category vacancy. She qualified the screening test but her candidature was rejected in 2011 on the ground that her qualification was not relevant or equivalent to the prescribed qualification.

She challenged the rejection in SWP No. 1949/2011. By judgment dated 23 November 2017, the High Court directed reconsideration of her eligibility in light of the competent authority’s communication regarding equivalence of her qualification.

The Public Service Commission’s appeal was dismissed on 9 August 2019, after which the applicant was permitted to participate in the interview process. She was ultimately recommended and appointed as Lecturer, Computer Science, by Government Order No. 73-Edu of 2021 dated 25 March 2021.

The applicant claimed notional seniority from 25 November 2011, when candidates selected in the same recruitment process were appointed, contending that the delay resulted from her wrongful exclusion. She also sought promotion or consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer on parity with another candidate from the related recruitment process.

Contempt proceedings were disposed of on 18 November 2023 with liberty to seek substantive relief regarding notional seniority and consequential benefits before the competent forum.

Whether the applicant, whose candidature was rejected on an erroneous determination regarding equivalence of qualification but who was subsequently appointed through the same recruitment process, was entitled to notional seniority from the date on which other candidates from that process were appointed?

Whether the applicant was entitled to automatic promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer on the basis of notional seniority and the promotion of another similarly situated candidate?

Whether the claim was barred by delay or limitation, or by the earlier judgment directing that service benefits would follow from the date of joining?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Although seniority ordinarily commences from the date of substantive appointment, notional seniority may be granted as an equitable exception where a candidate is wrongfully excluded from a common selection process and the exclusion is subsequently rectified through judicial intervention.

The Tribunal relied on Raghu Singh Jandla v. State of J&K & Ors., T.A. No. 1571/2020, as affirmed by the High Court in WP(C) No. 373/2026, and on the principles stated in C. Jayachandran v. State of Kerala, (2020) 5 SCC 230, and Sanjay Dhar v. J&K Public Service Commission, that a candidate should not lose seniority because of wrongful exclusion attributable to the selecting or appointing authority.

Notional seniority does not automatically confer arrears of salary for a period during which the employee did not actually work.

Promotion remains subject to the applicable service rules, qualifying service, eligibility, vacancy position, and consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s participation in 2019–2020 was not a fresh selection but a continuation of the 2008 recruitment process, since her candidature had initially been excluded only because her qualification was wrongly treated as non-equivalent.

Once the competent authority accepted the equivalence of her qualification, the High Court proceedings concluded in her favour, and she was ultimately selected and appointed against the same advertisement, the intervening delay was attributable substantially to the adjudication of her eligibility.

Applying Raghu Singh Jandla, the Tribunal rejected the respondents’ absolute proposition that seniority could never precede actual appointment and held that the applicant could not be penalised for the consequences of her wrongful exclusion.

The observation in the 2019 judgment concerning benefits from the date of joining was not treated as a final adjudication against notional seniority, particularly because the later contempt order had expressly preserved the applicant’s right to seek substantive relief.

The Tribunal balanced the equities by denying back wages for the period before actual joining while allowing notional seniority and consequential service consideration.

It declined to order automatic promotion, holding instead that the applicant’s promotion claim must be reconsidered after refixation of seniority and in accordance with the governing rules.

The respondents were directed to reckon the applicant’s seniority in the cadre of Lecturer, Computer Science (10+2), notionally from 25 November 2011, or the date on which candidates selected under the same recruitment process were appointed, subject to placement according to her inter se merit.

The UT of Ladakh was directed to refix her seniority, with the UT of Jammu & Kashmir to transmit the necessary records where required.

No arrears of salary or back wages were granted for the period before her actual appointment, though notional seniority was to be considered for consequential service benefits.

Her case was directed to be considered for promotion or placement as Senior Lecturer under the applicable rules; if a junior had already been promoted, her case was to be considered from the corresponding date, subject to eligibility and other statutory requirements.

The exercise was to be completed within three months, and there was no order as to costs.