Back
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, BRIJ RAJ SINGH
State of Uttar Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Shushil Mishra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
1. Heard Sri V.P. Nag, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-appellants in Special Appeal No. 541 of 2023, Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants in Special Appeal No. 273 of 2023 and Sri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in Special Appeal No. 273 of 2023 and Sri Gaurav Mehrotra & Sri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents in all appeals.
2. All the aforesaid three appeals are filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 challenging the judgment and order dated 03.05.2023 passed in Writ (A) No. 1600 of 2017, Sushil Mishra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners, respondents herein, was allowed setting aside the seniority list dated 31.03.2016 of Area Rationing Officer, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Uttar Pradesh in so far as it relates to placing the petitioners in the writ petition below 173 Senior Supply Inspectors.
3. The facts of the case
The court affirmed the validity of the merger of Senior Supply Inspectors with Area Rationing Officers effective from 30.06.2011, ruling that executive orders cannot override statutory rules.
The seniority list was not prepared in accordance with the rules and the petitioners' objections were not considered.
Once a decision is taken to which there is no challenge but if aforesaid decision is implemented by an Authority or in a manner against provisions of law or in excess of Authority or jurisdiction ves....
Seniority between direct recruits and promotees must follow the quota-rota rule under statutory provisions when applicable, regardless of past non-implementation, ensuring fairness in the same recrui....
Point of Law : While enacting the provisions of Section 2 of the Act, 1861 itself delegated the power to the statutory authorities to fix the eligibility including the age etc. and statutory authorit....
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.
Direct recruits cannot claim seniority over promotee officers unless their appointment precedes any seniority list determination.
Amendments favoring in-service candidates in seniority over direct recruits violated constitutional equality, necessitating merit-based revisions.
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
