IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Rajesh Kumar Tandon and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Service Single Nos. 12020, 12834, 17765 of 2020
Decided On : 20-10-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 309 and 14 and 16 - U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 - Combined State Public Service Examination, 2005 - Recruits to post of Assistant Commissioner - Re-fixing/revisiting seniority list - Seeking quashing seniority list - Petitioners and private respondents are posted as Deputy Commissioner in different districts of Uttar Pradesh in Commercial Tax Department, U.P. after they were promoted in year 2014 based on seniority list - Petitioners are direct recruits to post of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax whereas private respondents are promotee officers - Promoted from post of Sales Tax Officer Grade-II. Post of Deputy Commissioner and above are to be filled up only by promotion - Combined State Public Service Examination, 2005 by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, petitioners were selected as per merit list prepared by Commission - Respondents who were holding post of Commercial Tax Officer were promoted under 50% quota to post of Assistant Commissioner vide order - Commercial Tax whereas private respondents are promotee officers - Nomenclature of Sales Tax Department was changed as Trade Tax Department name was again changed as Commercial Tax Department.
Finding of the Court:
Appointment on post of Assistant Commissioner was made through direct recruitment and by promotion in recruitment - Rightly determined applying principle of Rule 8(3) while publishing seniority list - applied for determining inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotes - Selection and appointments are made in same recruitment year through direct recruitment and promotion - Impugned seniority list is correctly prepared and settled seniority position should not and cannot be reopened after 8-9 years.
Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. WRIT PETITIONS:
2. FACTS:
(i) The petitioners and private respondents are posted as Deputy Commissioner in different districts of Uttar Pradesh in Commercial Tax Department, U.P. after they were promoted in the year 2014 based on seniority list dated 09.08.2012. Services of the petitioners as well as private respondents are governed under U.P. Sales Tax Service Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 1983’) as amended from time to time.
(ii) The petitioners are direct recruits to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax whereas private respondents are promotee officers, who were promoted from the post of Sales Tax Officer Grade-II. Post of Deputy Commissioner and above are to be filled up only by promotion. Nomenclature of the Sales Tax Department was changed as Trade Tax Department and, thereafter name was again changed as Commercial Tax Department.
(iii) In pursuance to the advertisement issued for holding selection for the Combined State Public Service Examination, 2005 by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, the petitioners were selected as per merit list prepared by the Commission. They joined the service on different dates in the year 2008-09. Private respondents who were holding post of Commercial Tax Officer were promoted under 50% quota to the post of Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 27.02.2009 and they joined the said post on the same day.
(iv) Final seniority list for the cadre of Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax from Serial No. 173 to 2115 was issued on 09.08.2012, wherein the officers appointed directly and through promotion on the post of Assistant Commissioner in the recruitment year 2008-09 were placed in order of seniority as per the relevant Rules in the ratio of 1:1.
(v) The petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 3 to 11 were promoted on the post of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax by means of a common order in the year 2014 based on seniority list dated 09.08.2012.
(vi) Petitioner No. 8 submitted representation dated 03.08.2019 against the seniority list dated 09.08.2012. Respondent No. 1 considered the representation and rejected the same vide impugned order dated 20.03.2020 stating that the seniority list dated 09.08.2012 was prepared in accordance with law.
3. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS:
(i) Rule 5 of Rules, 1983 provides for source of recruitment to the various categories of post in the services. For convenience Rule 5 is extracted hereunder:
“5. Source of Recruitment:
(1) Recruitment to the various categories of posts in the Service shall be made from the sources indicated against each:
(a) Sales Tax Officer - (i) By direct recruitment on the result of competitive examination conducted by the Commission.
(ii) By promotion, through the Commission, from amongst permanent Sales Tax Officers, Grade-II who have put in not less than seven years' service as such.
Note - A combined competitive examination may be held by the Commission for recruitment to the U.P. Civil (Executive) Service and any other State Services including this Service.
(b) Assistant Com
Anil Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others
Aflatoon and Others vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others AIR 1974 SC 2077
Bhoop Singh vs. Union of India
H.D. Vora vs. State of Maharashtra
Hindustan Petrolium Corporation Ltd. vs. Dolly Das
Inderjit Gupta vs. Union of India and Others
Jagdish Ch. Patnaik vs. State of Orissa
K. Meghachandra Singh and Others vs. Nigam Siro and Others
K.R. Mudgal and Others vs. R.P. Singh and Others
L. Muthu Kumar and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Jyotish Chandra Biswas
Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'souza vs. Union of India and Others
Municipal Council, Ahmadnagar vs. Shah Hyder Beig
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi
Nani Sha vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh
Pt. Gidharan Prasad Missir vs. State of Bihar and Others
Padma vs. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu
Ravindra Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P. 2014 (6) AWC 6389
Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra
State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar
State of Mysore vs. V.K. Kangan and Others
State of Orissa vs. Pyarimohan Samantaray and Others
The Ramjas Foundation vs. Union of India
Union of India and Others vs. M.K. Sarkar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.