Back
2003 Supreme(All) 2341
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sunil Ambawani, J.
GIRISH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. AND ORS. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 32548 Of 2003
Decided On : 10/24/2003
K.D.MISHRA, RAGHURAJ KISHOR, SANTOSH MISHRA
The seniority of the promotees and direct recruits shall be determined in a cyclic order. The seniority of the persons appointed on the result of any one selection shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list prepared by the Commission or the Committee, as the case may be. The seniority of the persons appointed by promotion shall be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Rule 6 or Rule 7, as the case may be, according as the promotions are to be made from a single feeding cadre or several feeding cadres. Where appointments are made both by promotion and direct recruitment on the result of any one selection, the seniority of the promotees vis-à-vis direct recruits shall be determined in a cyclic order (the first being a promotee) so far as may be, in accordance with the quota prescribed for the two sources.
Headnote:
The seniority list of Excise Inspectors was challenged. The court held that the seniority of the promotees and direct recruits shall be determined in a cyclic order. The seniority of the persons appointed on the result of any one selection shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list prepared by the Commission or the Committee, as the case may be. The seniority of the persons appointed by promotion shall be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Rule 6 or Rule 7, as the case may be, according as the promotions are to be made from a single feeding cadre or several feeding cadres. Where appointments are made both by promotion and direct recruitment on the result of any one selection, the seniority of the promotees vis-à-vis direct recruits shall be determined in a cyclic order (the first being a promotee) so far as may be, in accordance with the quota prescribed for the two sources.
Fact of the Case:
The seniority list of Excise Inspectors was challenged. The court held that the seniority of the promotees and direct recruits shall be determined in a cyclic order. The seniority of the persons appointed on the result of any one selection shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list prepared by the Commission or the Committee, as the case may be. The seniority of the persons appointed by promotion shall be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Rule 6 or Rule 7, as the case may be, according as the promotions are to be made from a single feeding cadre or several feeding cadres. Where appointments are made both by promotion and direct recruitment on the result of any one selection, the seniority of the promotees vis-à-vis direct recruits shall be determined in a cyclic order (the first being a promotee) so far as may be, in accordance with the quota prescribed for the two sources.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the seniority of the promotees and direct recruits shall be determined in a cyclic order. The seniority of the persons appointed on the result of any one selection shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list prepared by the Commission or the Committee, as the case may be. The seniority of the persons appointed by promotion shall be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Rule 6 or Rule 7, as the case may be, according as the promotions are to be made from a single feeding cadre or several feeding cadres. Where appointments are made both by promotion and direct recruitment on the result of any one selection, the seniority of the promotees vis-à-vis direct recruits shall be determined in a cyclic order (the first being a promotee) so far as may be, in accordance with the quota prescribed for the two sources.
Issues: The issue before the court was to determine the seniority of the Excise Inspectors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the seniority of the promotees and direct recruits shall be determined in a cyclic order. The seniority of the persons appointed on the result of any one selection shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list prepared by the Commission or the Committee, as the case may be. The seniority of the persons appointed by promotion shall be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Rule 6 or Rule 7, as the case may be, according as the promotions are to be made from a single feeding cadre or several feeding cadres. Where appointments are made both by promotion and direct recruitment on the result of any one selection, the seniority of the promotees vis-à-vis direct recruits shall be determined in a cyclic order (the first being a promotee) so far as may be, in accordance with the quota prescribed for the two sources.
Final Decision: The court held that the seniority of the promotees and direct recruits shall be determined in a cyclic order. The seniority of the persons appointed on the result of any one selection shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list prepared by the Commission or the Committee, as the case may be. The seniority of the persons appointed by promotion shall be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Rule 6 or Rule 7, as the case may be, according as the promotions are to be made from a single feeding cadre or several feeding cadres. Where appointments are made both by promotion and direct recruitment on the result of any one selection, the seniority of the promotees vis-à-vis direct recruits shall be determined in a cyclic order (the first being a promotee) so far as may be, in accordance with the quota prescribed for the two sources.
( 1 ) A final seniority list of Excise Inspectors of the U. P. Excise Department dated 20. 6. 2003 is under challenge in all these writ petitions. These parties can be classified into six groups. Writ Petition No. 31185 of 2003 between Ravindra Kumar Nigam v. State of U. P. is filed by Excise inspector appointed by direct recruitment to the post in 1994. (First Group) Writ Petition No. 26863 of 2003 between Promod Dhawan and two Ors. v. State of U. P. , Writ Petition No. 26936 of 1993; between Hart Lal v. State of U. P. , Writ Petition No. 32548 of 2003 between Rajesh kumar Tandon v. State of U. P. No. 32548 of 2003 between Suresh Kumar Tandon v. State of u. P, and No. 28444 of 2003 between Arun Kumar Saxena v. State of U. P. have been filed by sub-Inspectors in State Excise Department who were promoted as Excise Inspector on 17. 11. 1992. (Second Group) Writ Petition No. 26937 of 2003 between Girja Shankar Singh and two Ors. v. State of UP. , has been filed by Excise Inspectors who were promoted from the post of routine grade Clerks/reference and Accounts Clerks. (Third Group) Writ Petition No. 30988 of 2002 between Udham Singh v. State of U. P. has been filed by Excise Inspector promoted from the post of routing grade clerk on 22. 11. 1972 and thereafter senior clerk on 28. 9. 1978. senior assistant on 18. 1. 1992 and thereafter as Excise Inspector on 17. 12. 1992. (Fourth Group)Writ Petition No. 32066 of 2001 between Girish Chandra Srivastava v. State of U. P. and No. 32068 of 2001 between Girja Shankar Singh v. State of U. P. , is by an Excise Inspector promoted from the post of routing grade clerk, on 17. 11. 1992 (Fifth Group ). The sixth group is of retrenched employees of other departments absorbed directly as Excise Inspectors, who are not represented.
( 2 ) THE recruitment and promotion of Excise Inspectors in the U. P. Excise Department was regulated by U. P. Subordinate Excise Service Rules, 1976, made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regulating the service condition of U. P. Subordinate Excise service. Rule 4 provided for the strength of the service, and Rule, 5, the source of recruitment. Three sources were provided for recruitment to the service i. e. , (a) by direct recruitment of candidates, on the result of a combined competitive examination conducted by the Commission, (b) by promotion of permanent clerks of the Office at the headquarters of the Excise commissioner, and other regional and subordinate excise offices of the Assistant Excise commissioners and Superintendents of Excise in Uttar Pradesh and (c) by promotion of permanent Tari Supervisors, Rules 7 authorized Excise Commissioner to decide the number of candidates to be recruited from each of three sources specified in Rule 5. In deciding the question regard was to be paid to the relative number of promoted and directly recruited persons in the cadre of the service, and in an case not more than ten percent of the candidates to be recruited in any one year, were to be recruited by promotion, each from source (b) and (c)respectively, if suitable candidates were available Rule 27 provided seniority in the service to be determined by the date of the order of appointment in substantive vacancies, provided if two or more candidates were appointed on the same date, their inter-se seniority was to be determined according to the order in which the appointments were made under Rule 26 (2 ). These Rules were superseded by Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Excise Service Rules, 1983. Rule 4 of these Rules provided the cadre strength to be determined by the Governor from time to time and Rule 5 provided for recruitment to various categories of post in the U. P. Subordinate Excise Service to be made from following sources; (a) Excise Inspector, (i) 90% by direct recruitment on the result of a combined competitive examination conducted by the Commission, (ii) 10% by promotion from amongst the permanent Sub-Excise Inspecto
