Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Alok Mathur, J.
Shiv Datt Joshi – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over seniority (Para 3) |
| 2. promotion process (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85) |
JUDGMENT :
Alok Mathur, J.
1. Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra assisted by Ms. Ritika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as Sri Akhilesh Kumar Kalra, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.
2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions, as such, they are being decided by this common judgment and order.
3. The dispute regarding seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees once again falls for consideration in the bunch of writ petitions which have been filed by the promotees assailing the order dated 06/08/2023 by which the date of appointment
The court held that settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a long period, emphasizing the principle of res judicata and the limits of administrative power in altering promotion dates.
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.
Seniority assigned to any employee could not be changed after a lapse of 7 years, though even on merit it was found that seniority of the petitioner therein had correctly been fixed.
Seniority once settled cannot be unsettled after a long delay, and an order given in ignorance of the terms of a Statute or a rule having the force of Statute is per incuriam.
Employment and Service matter - Re-assessment of seniority - As per Rule 3(1)(b), seniority of teachers in a grade has to be determined on basis of their substantive appointment in that grade, meanin....
(1) There is one cadre of Junior Engineers in Minor Irrigation Department and there has to be one seniority list of Junior Engineers. It is seniority list of cadre of Junior Engineers which would be ....
Seniority lists finalized under pre-overruling law (initiation of recruitment process and quota rotation) protected prospectively; ad hoc service does not confer seniority; repeated provisional lists....
The court reaffirmed that temporary or ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority rights, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory rules for public service appointments.
Retrospective promotion cannot be granted to an employee from a date when the employee was not borne in the cadre. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the 2002 Rules was found inapplicable to determine the int....
The court established that seniority must be determined by the date of first appointment, and settled seniority cannot be revised after a significant delay.
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
