Back
B. R. GAVAI, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Amit Singh – Appellant
Versus
Ravindra Nath Pandey – Respondent
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 Seniorit
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 officer....
Seniority assigned to any employee could not be changed after a lapse of 7 years, though even on merit it was found that seniority of the petitioner therein had correctly been fixed.
Inter-se seniority for direct recruits/promotees appointed 27.11.2012-18.11.2019, not finalized by 18.11.2019, determined from recruitment process initiation date per 1986/2014 OMs, overriding later ....
The decision of the authorities in creating a post for direct recruits and making appointments much prior in time to the date of regularization of the promotees was not infirm. The court emphasized t....
Seniority in service is a statutory right determined by established merit lists, with waiting list candidates lacking rights to precedence over those appointed from the main list.
The court reaffirmed that temporary or ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority rights, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory rules for public service appointments.
Rule 22(3) of the Assam Engineering (Public Works Department) Service Rules, 1978 prioritizes promotees over direct recruits for seniority based on vacancy year, complying with Articles 14 and 16 of ....
The catch-up rule in determining seniority among different categories of employees should be applied in a manner that balances the interests of all categories and does not result in reverse discrimin....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
