The Delhi High Court, while hearing a dispute relating to seniority in an aided secondary school, held that the seniority of an employee cannot be determined based on the timing of the interview. The Court clarified that seniority is determined by merit, the method of appointment, and the date on which the employee entered into service, and not by technical circumstances of the recruitment process, such as the time of interview.
The Court observed that,
“The Petitioner’s case, in substance, asks the Court to treat the forenoon interview as conferring seniority over those interviewed later. Rule 109 does not support such a test. Rule 109(ii) uses “order of merit” of selection as the determinant for those selected on the same occasion. The rule does not recognise interview session timing as a proxy for merit, and the Court cannot create that proxy by judicial craft.”
The order was passed by the single-judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula while dismissing a petition filed by Jolly Batoo. The Court held that the seniority list issued by the school in 2022 was valid and that there was no ground to interfere with the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) conducted based on that list.
The Court further emphasised that,
“The October 2020 list itself shows why the Petitioner’s premise is unstable. It mixes multiple columns such as “marks obtained”, “date of joining”, “date of selection”, and “SSC/DPC time”. That internal format does not change what Rule 109 requires. Where the statute insists on merit and an authorised seniority roster, an internal spreadsheet style listing cannot elevate “time of interview” into a legal criterion.”
According to the case record, the petitioner was appointed as a PGT (Commerce) at Lady Irwin Senior Secondary School in 2008 and joined service on 13 August 2008. In contrast, the respondent teacher had already been working in the school as a TGT and was promoted to the post of PGT (Mathematics) by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 14 July 2008.
Challenging the seniority list issued on 22 March 2022, the petitioner sought restoration of her position as reflected in an earlier seniority list dated 9 October 2020. She contended that based on the 2022 seniority list, the respondent teacher, Sharda Verma, was recommended for promotion to the post of Vice-Principal by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 28 November 2024.
The petitioner argued that the recommendation was based on an incorrect determination of seniority and therefore sought quashing of the said seniority list and a restraint on the implementation of the promotion recommendation. She further requested the Court to ensure that the determination of seniority be carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act and the rules framed thereunder.
The petitioner claimed that seniority in the PGT grade should be determined according to the “date of selection” and, where the date of selection is the same, by the timing of the interview session (AM/PM). In support of this argument, she relied on the seniority list prepared in October 2020, where her name appeared at serial number 4, and she was shown as senior to the respondent.
The petitioner argued that if her position in the 2020 seniority list were restored, she would become eligible for promotion. The list also mentioned that it had been prepared in compliance with Rule 109 of the 1973 Rules and included columns such as “date of selection”, “SSC/DPC interview time (AM/PM)” and “marks obtained”.
Read also: https://practicinglawyer.in/allahabad-high-court-ramzan-prayer-restriction-sambhal-law-and-order/
However, upon examining the record, the Court found that the issue of inter-se seniority had earlier been raised before the Directorate of Education. It was clarified there that in recognised aided schools the managing committee is the competent authority in matters relating to appointments, and that seniority must be determined in accordance with Rule 109 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
In the present case, the questions that arose for consideration before the Court were:
(i) What is the correct method for determining seniority in the PGT grade in a recognised aided school under Rule 109 of the 1973 Rules.
(ii) Whether the Petitioner can claim seniority on the basis of the “date of selection” and the interview session time (AM/PM), and whether the October 2020 seniority list grants her any legal advantage.
(iii) Whether the seniority list issued in March 2022 is legally sustainable or suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice.
(iv) Whether there are sufficient grounds for judicial interference with the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 28 November 2024.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that her interview had been conducted on 12 June 2008, whereas the respondent’s promotion took place on 14 July 2008, and therefore she should be treated as senior. It was further contended that since the seniority list dated 9 October 2020 placed her above the respondent, the same position should be restored. It was further submitted that the 2022 list had been issued without proper procedure or notice, therefore ignoring the principles of natural justice.
On the other hand, the respondents argued that all seniority lists issued from 2008 to 2019 uniformly reflected the respondent as senior to the petitioner, and the petitioner never raised any objection during that time. They argued that the 2020 list was neither authorised nor final, but merely a provisional document prepared without the approval of the managing committee. Since the respondent had been serving in the PGT grade from 14 July 2008, whereas the petitioner entered the grade only in August 2008, the petitioner could not claim seniority over her.
Rejecting the petitioner’s contention, the Court observed that,
“Natural justice does not mean that a mistaken seniority position must be perpetuated indefinitely. It means the employee must have a fair chance to object and have objections considered by the competent authority”
The Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish any legal error in the determination of seniority under the applicable rules. It noted that the petitioner relied on the 2020 seniority list, which was not an authorised document and against which objections were pending. The managing committee had subsequently finalised the 2022 seniority list in accordance with the rules.
The Court further underlined that,
“On these facts, the Petitioner’s invitation to rank a later entrant above a person already in the grade runs into the principle repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court and by this Court: seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the employee was not borne in service.”
The Court also noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any specific violation of the rota-quota mechanism under Rule 109(iii). For such a claim to succeed, the petitioner was required to place on record the relevant recruitment rules, the prescribed quota and a clear seniority roster to demonstrate that the long-standing seniority position warranted interference by this Court
Accordingly, the Court set aside the interim stay on the recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 28 November, 2024 and directed the competent authorities to proceed with the promotion process in accordance with the law.
Case: Jolly Batoo vs Government of NCT of Delhi And Others
Date of Order: 27.02.2026
Status: Dismissed
