1. Dispute regarding inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees appointed in the same recruitment year under the U.P. Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1154
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Amit Singh – Appellant
Versus
Ravindra Nath Pandey and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8324-8327 of 2022, SLP (Civil) Nos. 30734-30737 of 2014
Decided On : 11-11-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Seniority – Date of entry in a particular service or date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or other or between one group of officers and other recruited from different sources.
Seniority – Date of entry in a particular service or date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or other or between one group of officers and other recruited from different sources.
Subject
Seniority - Direct Recruits vs Promotees
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.16, Art.309
UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENT SERVANTS SENIORITY RULES: R.8(3)
UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENT SERVANTS SENIORITY RULES: R.8(3)
Headnote
Service Law – Seniority – Date of entry in a particular service or date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or other or between one group of officers and other recruited from different sources – Any departure therefrom in statutory rules, executive instructions or otherwise must be consistent with requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India – Seniority cannot be reckoned from date of occurrence of vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by relevant service rules – Seniority cannot be given on retrospective basis when an employee has not even been borne in cadre and by doing so it may adversely affect employees who have been appointed validly in the meantime – Inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits will have to be determined in accordance with 1992 Rules – 1992 Rules, which are framed in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India, are in supersession of all existing Rules and Orders on the subject. [Constitution of India – Article 309, Proviso; Rule 8(3) of U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991] (Paras 19, 21, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 4th September 2014, passed by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, in Special Appeal No. 625 of 2008 and other connected Appeals, thereby, while upholding the order passed by Single Judge, modifying it to the extent that the seniority list shall be prepared by applying rota system to direct recruits and promotees appointed in one recruitment year.
Findings of Court:
Inter se seniority between promotees and the direct recruits will have to be determined in accordance with the 1992 Rules. 1992 Rules fix quota of 67% for direct recruits and 33% for promotees. A “year of recruitment” has been defined to be a period of twelve months, commencing from the first day of July of calendar year.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sushant Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Lomes, Adv. Mr. Ankur Yadav, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Goel, Adv. AOR Mr. Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Adv, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sushant Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Lomes, Adv. Mr. Ankur Yadav, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Goel, Adv. AOR Mr. Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Adv, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether seniority is determined by the date of substantive appointment or by a cyclic rota system for candidates appointed within the same recruitment year. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. The 1992 Rules supersede previous rules and mandate a combined select list in cyclic order for appointments made from both sources in one recruitment year. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 )
4. Inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits appointed in the same recruitment year must be determined by the cyclic order prescribed in the service rules. (Para 12 , 17 , 18 , 24 )
5. Appeals dismissed; seniority list giving preference to direct recruits over promotees in the same recruitment year set aside in favor of the rota system. (Para 27 , 28 )
6. How is inter se seniority determined when appointments are made via both promotion and direct recruitment in the same recruitment year?
Seniority is determined in a cyclic order (rota system), typically with the first position going to a promotee, maintaining the prescribed quota for both sources as mandated by the relevant service rules. (Para 12 , 17 , 18 , 24 )
7. What is the effect of the U.P. Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992, on previous seniority rules?
The 1992 Rules were notified in supersession of all existing rules and orders on the subject, meaning they override any inconsistent provisions in earlier service rules, such as the 1991 Rules. (Para 15 , 19 )
8. Can seniority be granted retrospectively from the date of vacancy?
Ordinarily, seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of vacancy or granted retrospectively unless expressly provided by service rules, as it may adversely affect employees validly appointed in the interim. (Para 20 , 21 )
9. How is the recruitment year defined under the U.P. Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992?
The year of recruitment is defined as a period of twelve months commencing from the first day of July of a calendar year. (Para 15 , 23 )
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 4th September 2014, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, in Special Appeal No. 625 of 2008 and other connected Appeals, thereby, while upholding the order passed by the learned Single Judge, modifying it to the extent that the seniority list shall be prepared by applying the rota system to direct recruits and promotees appointed in one recruitment year.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are as under:
3.1 The writ petitioners, who were promoted to the post of Assistant Consolidation Officers (hereinafter referred to as “the ACOs”) against the recruitment year 1997-1998, approached the learned Single Judge of the High Court, claiming that their seniority was above the direct recruits of the same recruitment year. It was the contention of the writ petitioners that the ACOs who were directly appointed were erroneously given seniority over the promotees. It was their contention that the seniority was required to be given in accordance with Rule 8(3) of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1991 Rules”) and their names had to be placed in a cyclic order, i.e. a promotee followed by a direct recruitee.
3.2 The writ petitioners were initially appointed as Consolidators in the Consolidation Department in various districts. They were promoted to the post of ACOs on various dates in the year 1997. The respondents in the writ petitions, i.e. direct recruits were directly appointed to the post of ACOs, on the basis of the recommendation of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission and as per the recruitment process under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1992 Rules”). The direct recruits were appointed on 18th August 1997. As such, both the promotees as well as the direct recruits came in the cadre of the ACOs in the recruitment year of 1997-1998, i.e. between 1st July 1997 and 30th June 1998.
3.3 The claim of the writ petitioners was resisted by the State as well as by the direct recruits. It was contended on behalf of the State as well as the direct recruits that the seniority has to be assigned on the basis of the year of vacancy. It was submitted that, in the case of direct recruits, though for an earlier year there existed vacancy for them, they were appointed subsequently and as such, they were given seniority in the quota available in the earlier years.
3.4 The learned Single Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that the direct recruits were appointed on 18th August 1997, whereas the writ petitioners were promoted on 16th December 1997. The learned Single Judge found that both the promotees as well as the direct recruits became members of the cadre of ACOs in the same recruitment year, i.e. 1997-1998 and, therefore, in accordance with Rule 8 of the 1991 Rules, they had to be placed in the seniority list in a cyclic order. It was found that the said exercise was carried out in the year 2003; however, the same had been abruptly changed through the seniority list dated 29th July 2005, impugned before the High Court. The learned Single Judge found that in the recruitment year 1997-1998, there were requisite number of posts available for promotees and as such, the action of the State in denying the seniority to the promotees was not sustainable. The learned Single Judge, therefore, allowed the writ petitions and quashed and set aside the impugned seniority list dated 29th July 2005. The learned Single Judge further directed that the promotees of 1997 to be placed above the direct recruits of that year.
3.5 Being aggrieved thereby, the direct recruits preferred appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. The learned Judges of the Division Bench of the Hig
