This judgment dismisses the writ petition and leaves the seniority list as it stands. It does not decide the validity of Rule 51-A of the 2005 Rules, under which the petitioner's merit tie with the last selected general-category candidate was broken — that challenge was disposed of in 2021 when the vacancy arose — and it does not disturb the petitioner's appointment, only the date from which his seniority runs.
- Case
- Mudasir Bashir v. Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh and Others
- Court
- High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh
- Decision
- Bench
- Sanjeev Kumar; Mohd Yousuf Wani
- Judgment by
- Sanjeev Kumar
- Case numbers
- WP(C) No. 251 of 2026
- Outcome
- Writ petition dismissed. The impugned order of 7 June 2025 rejecting the petitioner's representation stands; the petitioner ranks in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) from his appointment on 11 October 2021, not from 1 June 2021.
Seniority runs from first appointment, not from the select list
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a Civil Judge's claim to seniority from the date on which the candidates selected ahead of him were appointed, holding that a candidate appointed from the waiting list against a later vacancy ranks from his own date of first appointment.
A Division Bench of Mr Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Mr Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani dismissed Mudasir Bashir's writ petition, WP(C) No. 251 of 2026, on 12 November 2026, upholding the High Court's order of 7 June 2025 rejecting his representation for seniority over the private respondents.
The Court held the petitioner's plea — that his higher merit in the 2019 selection entitled him to rank above respondents appointed on 1 June 2021 — legally unsustainable, because on that date no vacancy existed against which he could have been appointed. His date of first appointment was 11 October 2021, and it could not be pushed back.
A tie broken, a vacancy, and a waiting-list appointment
The Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission advertised 42 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 30 May 2018, 24 in the open-merit category and 18 reserved. Bashir, a general-category candidate, stood at serial No. 24 in the merit list declared on 22 August 2019, tied with Uzma Amin, the last candidate selected under the general category. The tie was broken under Rule 51-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examinations) Rules, 2005, because Bashir had secured fewer points in the viva-voce, and he was not selected.
He challenged the tie-break in SWP No. 3898 of 2019. While it was pending, Nikita Mahajan — serial No. 14 of the select list prepared by Government Order dated 20 November 2019 — opted not to join, leaving an open-merit vacancy for the candidate first in the waiting list. The Court disposed of the writ petition on 18 February 2021, directing the Law Department to ask the Commission within two weeks to forward Bashir's name for appointment against that vacancy.
His selection was approved by Government Order No. 3474-JK(LD) of 2021 dated 20 May 2021, and he was temporarily appointed by Government Order No. 4768-JK(LD) of 2021 dated 11 October 2021. In a representation dated 16 February 2024 to the Registrar General, he claimed seniority over respondents 6 to 23 — candidates selected under reserved categories who had secured lower merit than him. The Administrative Committee found the claim not tenable in law on 10 December 2024, the Full Court approved that decision on 6 June 2025, and his claim was rejected by the impugned order of 7 June 2025.
Can merit backdate a waiting-list appointment?
Bashir contended that, having taken part in the selection initiated on 30 May 2018, he was entitled under Rule 24(1)(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, read with Rules 39 and 42 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967, to be placed in the seniority list strictly according to the merit he obtained — above all the private respondents, whose merit points were admittedly lower.
The Court framed two questions: whether a candidate appointed against a vacancy arising from the non-joining of a selected candidate can claim seniority from a date before his actual appointment; and whether a candidate appointed by operation of the waiting list can claim to have been appointed along with the candidates appointed on the final select list, and so to rank with them on the strength of his merit.
The waiting list is a reservoir; seniority follows first appointment
Rule 39 of the 1967 Rules, which the Court quoted, requires the approved select list to be published in the Government Gazette, with a copy — along with the waiting list, if any — sent to the High Court. The Court read this as making the waiting list a reservoir for appointments against available vacancies.
Bashir did not figure in the final select list. He was selected and recommended only when a post fell vacant after the selection process had concluded, on the non-joining of Ms Mahajan. The private respondents were appointed on 1 June 2021; he was appointed only on 11 October 2021.
The answer, the Court held, lay in Rule 24 of the 1956 Rules. Sub-rule (1) provides that seniority is determined by the date of first appointment to the service, class, category or grade — "date of first appointment" meaning the date of first substantive appointment, or of first appointment on probation against a clear vacancy. Its proviso, including clause (b) fixing the inter se seniority of direct recruits by merit, applies only where two or more persons are appointed to the same service simultaneously.
Not appointed together, so the merit proviso does not apply
Applying that rule, the Court held that Bashir's date of first appointment was 11 October 2021 and "the same cannot be pushed back to 1st of June, 2021", when the private respondents were appointed: he had not even entered the service when they were deputed for training at the J&K Judicial Academy.
Clause (b) of the proviso did not help him. The proviso is attracted only where the dispute concerns the inter se seniority of persons appointed simultaneously; Bashir and the private respondents "were neither appointed together nor simultaneously", and the final select list in which he did not figure "stood exhausted and operated upon".
The Court added that, having been appointed on 11 October 2021, he could not claim seniority alongside those appointed on 1 June 2021 "when he had not even been born in the cadre", and that his right to be considered for appointment accrued only when the vacancy arose on Ms Mahajan's non-joining — had the post not fallen vacant, he would not have been selected or appointed at all. His plea was therefore "legally unsustainable", and the petition was dismissed.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students: merit orders seniority only among simultaneous appointees
The judgment turns on the difference between merit and appointment. Bashir's merit was higher than the private respondents', and his name was first in the waiting list — but merit orders seniority only among persons appointed together. Rule 24(1) makes the date of first appointment the anchor; the merit proviso is an exception for simultaneous appointees, not a general rule that merit travels back in time.
Note the role of Rule 39: the waiting list is a reservoir, not a second select list. A waiting-list appointment fills a vacancy that arises later, so the appointee's seniority starts when the vacancy — and the appointment — actually arise. That is why the Court could hold the claim failed even though the petitioner had taken part in the same selection process.
Note also what the judgment does not decide. It does not rule on the validity of Rule 51-A, the tie-break rule under which Bashir lost out to Ms Amin in the first place — that challenge was disposed of in 2021 on the vacancy development, not on the rule's merits. And it does not disturb Bashir's appointment; it fixes only the date from which his seniority runs.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the High Court hold that the petitioner's higher merit could not place him above the private respondents in the seniority list?
- What does the proviso to Rule 24(1) of the 1956 Rules require before merit can determine inter se seniority, and why was it not attracted here?
- What role does Rule 39 of the 1967 Rules give the waiting list, and how did that shape the Court's answer to the second question it framed?
