The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991, particularly Rule 8, and the emphasis on harmonious interpretation and application of the rules.

Devi Prasad Singh, J.

1. These special appeals under the Rules of the Court (Chapter VIII Rule 5) have been preferred, being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 29.9.2008, passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 6015(S/S) of 2005 and other connected petitions deciding an issue relating to inter se dispute between the direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Assistant Consolidation Officer.

2. We have heard Mr. R.K. Tiwari, learned Senior counsel, Mr. Shobhit Mohan Shukla and other counsels on behalf of the appellants as well as Mr. S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel and others representing the respondents.

3. Controversy relates to inter se seniority of the cadre of Assistant Consolidation Officers between direct recruits and promotees in pursuance to U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 (in short, 1991 Seniority Rules).

4. It has been admitted at bar that the direct recruits were appointed on 18.8.1997 whereas the promotees were promoted on the post of Assistant Consolidation Officer on 16.12.1997 within their quota (67%) in pursuance to U.P. Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992 (In short, 1992 Rules). Promotions were done within the quota on the post of Assistant Consolidation Officer from the persons who were working on the post of Consolidators.

5. Under these admitted facts on record, it has been argued by the appellants' counsel that the direct recruits are entitled to be placed over and above the promotees since they were appointed earlier than the promotees, i.e. in the month of August, 1997.

It has been further argued by the appellants' counsel that the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions directed that all the promotees who were promoted and appointed in the year 1997 should be placed over and above the direct recruits ignoring the roster. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has not only directed to place the promotees over and above direct recruits but also directed for en-block placement of all the promotees promoted in the year 1997 over and above direct recruits.

6. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel submits that since the direct recruits as well as the promotees were appointed in the same recruitment year in accordance with rules, the promotees were entitled to be placed over and above the direct recruits in accordance with rules.

7. 1991 Seniority Rules framed under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India have overriding effect (Rule 3) and deals with the matter with regard to determination of seniority. According to Sub Rule (h) of Rule 4, substantive appointment has been defined as appointment, not being an ad hoc appointment, on a post in the cadre of the Service, made after selection in accordance with the service rules of the respective services.

8. Rule 5 deals with determination of seniority where appointment is done by direct recruitment only and Rule 6 deals with the situation where seniority is liable to be determined in a situation where appointment is done only by promotion from a single feeding cadre. Rule 7 deals with a situation where appointment by promotion is done from several feeding cadres. However, Rule 8 deals with a situation where appointments are done by promotion and direct recruitment. Rule 8 is relevant for the purpose of determination of present controversy. For convenience, Rule 8 is reproduced as under:

8. Seniority where appointments by promotion and direct recruitment.--(1) Where according to the service rules appointments are made both by promotion and by direct recruitment, the seniority of persons appointed shall, subject to the provisions of the following sub-rules, be determined from the date of the order of their substantive appointments, and if two or more persons are appointed together, in the order in which their names are arranged in the appointment order:

Provided that if the appointment order specifies a particular back date, with effect from which a person