IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, BRIJ RAJ SINGH, JJ.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – Appellants
Versus
Shushil Mishra and Others – Respondents
Special Appeal Nos. 272, 273, 541 of 2023
Decided On : 13-08-2024
(A) Uttar Pradesh Food and Civil Supplies (Supply Branch) Subordinate Service Rules, 1980 - Merger of posts - The appellants were merged with the post of Area Rationing Officer based on the recommendations of the Pay Committee, 2008, effective from 30.06.2011, which was upheld by the court. The learned Single Judge's ruling that the merger could only take effect from the amendment in the Rules on 06.09.2013 was found erroneous. (Paras 12, 72, 79)
(B) Seniority - The court ruled that the appellants, having served since 2001, should be placed above the writ petitioners who were appointed later, affirming that the seniority list dated 31.03.2016 was just and proper. (Paras 70, 79)
Facts of the case:
The appeals challenge the judgment setting aside the seniority list of Area Rationing Officers, arguing that the writ petitioners lacked locus to question events prior to their appointment.
Findings of Court:
The merger of Senior Supply Inspectors with Area Rationing Officers was valid and the seniority list was upheld.
Issues: The main issue was whether the merger of posts could be applied retrospectively without amending the statutory rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that executive orders cannot override statutory rules and that the merger was valid as per the Government Order dated 30.06.2011.
Result: Appeals allowed.
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 that can be drawn in narrow compass are to the effect that the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed on Class-III posts of subordinate service in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies are governed under the Uttar Pradesh Food and Civil Supplies (Supply Branch) Subordinate Service Rules, 1980 (in brief, it is stated as ‘Rules 1980’). The posts of Supply Inspector and Senior Supply Inspector are the category of posts which would be governed under the said Service Rules, 1980. Under Rule 5 of the Rules, 1980, 50% of the posts of Supply Inspector are to be filled up by direct recruitment through Commission, and 50% by promotion through consultation with the Commission from amongst permanent Head Clerks/Accountants working in the Supply Branch of the Food and Civil Supplies Department. Similarly, 50% of the posts of Senior Supply Inspector were to be filled up by direct recruitment through Commission and 50% by promotion through consultation with the Commission from amongst the permanent Supply Inspectors having put in five years substantive service.
4. Rule 5 of Uttar Pradesh Food and Civil Supplies (Supply) Service Rules, 1981 (here-in-after it has been referred to as ‘Rules 1981’) provides that the posts of Area Rationing Officer were to be filled up by two sources of recruitment i.e. 50% by promotion from amongst Senior Supply Inspectors and 50% by means of direct recruitment. By way of First Amendment in the Service Rules, 1981, direct recruitment to the post of Area Rationing Officer was to be made by means of examination to be conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (briefly, it is stated as ‘Commission’).
5. The appellants of Special Appeal Nos. 272 of 2023 and 273 of 2023 were inducted in service as Supply Inspectors in the year 2001 and they were governed under Rules, 1980. Later on, they were promoted on the post of Senior Supply Inspector on 26.02.2010.
6. Considering that two distinct and separate wings, namely, Supply and Marketing Branches are actively working in the department, the Pay Committee, 2008, while examining the nature of duties of two branches and looking to the enhancement of area of working and duties, the Committee made a recommendation for merger of Senior Supply Inspector working in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 (revised pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 and Grade Pay Rs.4,200/-) with Area Rationing Officer working in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 (revised pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 and Grade Pay Rs.4,200/-) and to upgrade the pay scale of the post of Area Rationing Officer to Rs.7450-11500 (revised pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 and Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/-). The Finance Department in this backdrop issued an order dated 24.12.2009 to all departments for determination of the pay structure and
B.N. Nagaranjan and others v. State of Mysore and others
Bihar State Government Secondary School Teachers Association v. Ashok Kumar Sinha
Bihar State Govt. S.S. Teachers Association v. Bihar Education Service Association
Dr. Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Government of Andhra Pradesh and others V.P. Laxmi Devi
Pawan Pratap Singh and others v. Reevan Singh and others
Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Chanan Ram
S. Sivaguru v. State of Tamil Nadu
S.P. Shivprasad Pipal v. Union of India
Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa and others
Union of India through Government of Pondicherry and another v. V. Ramakrishnan and others
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....
The court affirmed the application of the quota-rota rule for determining inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits, emphasizing its necessity for fairness in service.
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.
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.