Once Condition Provided That Earlier Seniority Is Forfeited, Claim For Seniority In Future Cannot Be Made

The Court dismissed a Petition filed by the Petitioner, who sought a declaration to quash and set aside his disqualification for the posts of a Translator. The Court upheld the requirement of five years of service in the Registry of the High Court for the said post.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma held, “Once the condition provided that earlier seniority would be forfeited, the claim for seniority in future could not have been made. If such a course is provided it would amount to making ineligible’s as eligible and the said post being filled up by a person who would not be eligible at the time of cut of date leading to heart burning. Even all the four posts may not have been filled up, but since the right of other employees, who would have gained eligibility during the intervening period would be adversely affected and they would not be able to seek consideration as and when the fresh advertisement is issued for filling up the said posts. If the case of the petitioner is accepted, it would be in a manner to take away the vested rights as such of other aspirants which cannot thus be permitted in view of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”

Advocate K.B. Khajuria appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Rajiv Jiwan represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner sought to have his services rendered as a Clerk on the Establishment of the Civil and Sessions Division, Kullu, from December 30, 2016, to June 1, 2018, considered for eligibility for the post of Translator. The Rules for this post required a length of five years service from eligible Class-III and Class-IV employees of the Registry.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court noted, “The petitioner had only right of consideration. The post was being filled up by selection, on the basis of limited competitive examination. There are different considerations as such whereby if the posts are not filled by way of limited competitive examination, then the posts had to be filled up by direct recruitment by a competitive examination in which case there is no such requirement of five years service. But that is not the case of the petitioner herein.”

“It is thus apparent that the eligibility of the petitioner had to be seen on the cut of date, that is, 20.09.2022 and it is settled principle that the cut of date is sacrosanct. The eligibility as such was not there in the terms of service of 5 years on the establishment of this Court and the petitioner could not have been considered for appointment de hors the Rules and against the Statute ashis right of consideration was also within the ambit of the Rules. It is also settled principle that the mandamus can only be issued if there is legal right as such in favour of the persons seeking mandamus and therefore, the enforcement of the Rule can be asked for by approaching the Court,” the Bench remarked.

“In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be permitted as such to holdout that respondent No.1 is estopped from disqualifying him and making him ineligible on the principle of estoppel More so, since he himself is estopped from seeking any benefit as such of his earlier service with the Civil and Sessions Division at Kullu and is bound by the terms of his transfer and absorption on the Establishment of this Registry, on 02.06.2018,” the Bench stated.

Consequently, the Court ordered, “Resultantly, we do not find any ground to allow the present writ petition and the same is thus dismissed along with pending applications if any.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Yashwant Mandhotra v. Hon’ble High Court of HP & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:17984)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate K.B. Khajuria

Respondents: Senior Advocate Rajiv Jiwan; Advocate Nitin Thakur

Click here to read/download the Judgment