Srinagar, Nov 14: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a petition by a Civil Judge (Junior Division) seeking seniority over colleagues appointed under reserved categories, ruling that higher merit in the selection process does not override the date of actual appointment.

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani held that seniority under the applicable service rules is determined by the date of first appointment and cannot be granted retrospectively to a candidate appointed against a subsequent vacancy.
The petition was filed by Mudasir Bashir, who sought seniority based on his merit in the 2018 recruitment process for Civil Judge (Junior Division).
Bashir had secured the 24th position in the open merit category, with marks equal to the last selected candidate, Uzma Amin. However, the tie was resolved in Amin's favour on the basis of higher viva-voce marks under the applicable selection rules.
He subsequently approached the High Court challenging the selection process. During the pendency of the case, an open merit candidate, Nikita Mahajan, did not join the service, creating a vacancy against which Bashir was recommended for appointment.
Following the High Court's directions in the earlier proceedings, Bashir was appointed on October 11, 2021. Meanwhile, the colleagues whose seniority he challenged had joined the service on June 1, 2021.
Bashir later sought placement above respondents 6 to 23 in the seniority list, arguing that his merit was higher than several candidates selected under reserved categories. His representation was rejected by the authorities in June 2025, prompting the present petition.
Rejecting his plea, the Division Bench observed that Rule 24 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, determines seniority on the basis of the date of first appointment.
The court clarified that the provision allowing merit-based determination of inter se seniority applies when candidates are appointed simultaneously, which was not the case here.
"Having been appointed on 11th of October, 2021, the petitioner cannot claim seniority alongside the private respondents who were appointed on 1st of June, 2021, when he had not even been born in the cadre," the Bench observed.
The court further held that Bashir's appointment arose only after a subsequent vacancy became available due to Mahajan's non-joining. His higher merit in the original selection process, therefore, could not entitle him to retrospective seniority.
Finding no legal merit in the challenge, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition. The judgment was pronounced on November 12, 2026.