Important Point
Applying the Rule 6 of the U.P. Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 the 2nd respondent must be deemed to be senior in view of the admitted fact that he entered into the service (feeding cadre) much earlier to that of the appellant. The appellant was thus junior to the 2nd re­spondent in the cadre of Town Planner. If so, further promotion given to respondent 2 as Chief Town Planner cannot be faulted.

Judgment

K. Venkataswami, J.-The appellant, feeling aggrieved by the promo­tion given to the second respondent herein as Chief Town Planner. Bareilly, as per the order dated 6/7.7.92, moved the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, with a prayer for the issue of Writ of Certio­rari to quash the selection of the second respondent as Chief Town Planner (Mukhya Nagar Niyojak) and also for the issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider his case for the post of Chief Town Planner and to promote him to the said post with consequential benefits.

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition No. 3849/92 before the High Court are the following:-

On the coming into force of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, the ‘Development Authorities’ were constituted for the de­clared development areas. One such Development Authority constituted in September, 1974 was the Lucknow Development Authority. The said Authority had the power to appoint officers and employees for the performance of functions entrusted to it under Section 5(2) of the 1973 Act. A proposal for creation of certain posts in the Planning Section of the Luck­now Development Authority was moved for consideration on 3.3.76. Pursuant to that, in the meeting held on 15.10.76, the Vice Chairman of the Lucknow Development Author­ity intimated about the creation of posts in the Planning Section inter alia Assistant Architect and Executive Officer (RBO). By a letter of appointment dated 29.12.76, the appellant was appointed on the post of Assistant Architect in the pay scale of 550-1200, which was revised by the Pay Commission to 850-1720 w.e.f. 1.7.79. The appellant joined the service as Assistant Architect on 7.2.77. Subse­quently, the appellant was promoted on ad hoc basis as Executive Officer (RBO) on 7.2.83 in the pay scale of 800-1450, which was subse­quently revised as 1250-2050 with effect from a date prior to 7.2.83. However, the appellant was reverted to the original post of Assistant Architect by an order dated 2.4.83. This order of reversion was chal­lenged by the appellant before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 1929/83 on 14.4.83. The High Court finally heard and disposed of the Writ Petition on 22.7.87 accepting the case of the appellant and consequently quashing the order of reversion and directing the Authorities to restore the appellant to the post of Executive Officer (RBO) with all consequential benefits. In the mean­while, the 1973 Act was amended on 22.10.84 by inserting Section 5-A, which enabled the creation of ‘Develop­ment Authorities Centralised Services’. Later on, the U.P. Development Authorities Centralised Services Rules, 1985 were framed under Section 5-A read with Section 55 of 1973 Act. These Rules came into force on and from 25.6.85. Accord­ing to Rule 3, certain posts in the cadre of service of ‘Town Planning and Architectural’ were enumerated. For our purpose, the following four posts need a reference:-

1. Mukhya Nagar Niyojak 1780-2300

2. Nagar Niyojak 1250-2050

3. Sahayak Nagar Niyojak 850-1720

4. Vastuvid/Statistical Assistant 570-1100

3. As contemplated under the Centrali­sed Services Rules, the appellant was absorbed as Assistant Town Planner/Assistant Architect which post the appellant was holding when he was reverted in the pay scale of 850-1720 by an order dated 14.5.87. This order of absorption was passed when the matter was pending before the Allahabad High Court, which was disposed of only on 22.7.87, as noticed above, allowing the appellant’s case. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court was given effect to by the Authorities by making an entry in the Service Book of the appellant on 13.6.1991 to the effect that the appellant stood promoted to the post of Architect w.e.f. 7.2.83 in the p