The court upheld the validity of appointments made under the reservation policy, emphasizing that challenges to such appointments after a significant delay are barred by principles of delay and laches.

JUDGMENT :

A. R. Masoodi, J.

1. These three intra-court appeals are directed against the common judgement rendered by the writ court. Special Appeal No. 254 of 2019 has been filed by the appellants Dr Devendra Gupta and Dr Amitabh Arya, whereas, Special Appeal No. 255 of 2019 has been filed by the appellant Dr Vikas Agarwal. The appellants in both the above appeals were not a party to the writ proceedings. The intra-court Appeal No. 384 of 2023 has been filed by Dr Richa Mishra who firstly approached the writ court by means of Writ-A No. 2542 of 2023 which was dismissed on the ground of the matter being pending before the Chancellor against the same cause. The Chancellor has also decided the issue in line with the judgement rendered by the writ court assailed in the former two appeals mentioned above.

2. After dismissal of Dr. Richa Misra’s writ petition by the writ court on the aforementioned ground, the judgement so passed as a matter of fact has remained unchallenged, but feeling aggrieved against the consequential effect of the earlier judgement assailed in the former two intra-court appeals pursuant to which the Chancellor has finally set aside the order dated 9.8.2018, an intra court appeal has also been filed by Dr Richa Mishra without seeking leave to appeal.

3. It is to be noted that non parties to the writ proceedings who have instituted the two former intra court appeals as mentioned above, their prayer for leave to appeal has already been granted vide order dated 16.5.2023, hence the matter is to be dealt with on merit in the context of relevant law. The appeal filed by Dr. Richa Mishra involving the same question was also tagged.

4. The issue primarily involved in the present set of special appeals relates to the implementation of rule of reservation viz. as to whether Section 9 of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1994’) was rightly applied to the posts advertised vide advertisement no. 22/2003-2004, if not, the effect. The appointment and continuance of the incumbents pursuant to the above selection in the initial cadres besides their higher promotions made since the year 2004 on the higher posts/cadres remained unquestioned by any of the appellants. It is the seniority inter se of Professors which is relevant to be considered for appointment on administrative posts that has come to be challenged by the appellants at this stage. For example the Head of Department or Dean of Faculty in Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGI) or Director, for which the inter se seniority of Professors working in all the departments becomes relevant, the conflict of interest has emerged in this arena.

5. The appellants would contend that it is only limited to the service conditions in conflict, which can be the subject matter of dispute at their instance for they were not aggrieved against the appointments or promotions made by the SGPGI, though contrary to law.

6. On the other hand, the respondents would contend that once the advertisement and selection was duly made, their appointment made without any rider qualifies them for all the service benefits including seniority. Therefore, it is too late for the appellants to question the seniority as Professor unless their entry in service was questioned either at the level of induction or on the promoted posts till they reached to the cadre of Professor as per the qualifications and as per the criteria which was observed at par.

7. The conflict of interest between the two parties, on the one hand, drives the Court to go into the unquestioned past of more than two decades as regards violation of Section-9 of the Reservation Act, 1994 and on the other hand, the current eligibility for appointment on the administrative posts like Heads, Deans etc. is called upon to be judged without any compromise on the principle of equality embodied under Article 14 of the Constitut