Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
Shiv Datt Joshi And 2 Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. - Respondent
Writ A No.9193 of 2023
Decided on : 24-02-2025
(A) U.P Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 - Seniority determination - Petitioners promoted to Review Officer with effect from 30/06/2016, later modified to 13/07/2016, affecting their seniority - Court held that seniority once settled cannot be disturbed after a long period, reaffirming the principle of res judicata. (Paras 9, 11, 12, 51, 85)
(B) Administrative power - State government cannot unsettle settled seniority lists without statutory provision, as it amounts to a quasi-judicial decision. (Paras 32, 36, 52)
(C) Promotion from back date - Court found that the process for promotion was initiated to ensure it occurred within the recruitment year, thus justifying the backdating. (Paras 70, 71)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, promoted from Junior Grade Clerk to Review Officer, challenged the modification of their promotion date from 30/06/2016 to 13/07/2016, which adversely affected their seniority against direct recruits.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the modification of the promotion date was illegal and arbitrary, as the seniority had been consistently upheld for years.
Issues: Whether the State could validly alter the promotion date and disturb settled seniority after a long period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that once seniority is settled, it cannot be reopened without a valid reason, and the State's action was deemed arbitrary.
Result: Writ petitions allowed; orders modifying promotion dates quashed.
| 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 has been changed from 30/06/2016 to 13/07/2016 and the subsequent seniority list issued on 06/09/2023 whereby they have been pushed back in the seniority and the further promotion orders where according to the petitioners the direct recruits who were junior to them have been granted promotion.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners of writ petition A No. 9193/23 were appointed on the post of Junior Grade clerk in the Secretariat Administration Department in 1990 and on account of their seniority were promoted to the post of Assistant Review Officer in 2005. After satisfactory performance of the post of Assistant Review Officer and also serving for the substantial length of time they became eligible to be promoted to the post of Review Officer. The exercise for the promotion of petitioners commenced by issuance of letter dated 27/06/2016 written by the Secretary, Secretariat Administrative Department, Government of U.P to the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission asking him to convene the meeting of the selection committee for the purposes of conducting selections for the vacant and newly created posts of Review Officers in the promotion quota for the selection year 2015–16. It was further emphasised that the process may be concluded by 30th June 2016 so that the promotions can be made within the selection year.
5. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the Departmental Promotion Committee conducted its meeting on 30/06/2016 and intimated the results of the same to the State Government, and the matter was thereafter sent to the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission for its approval 08/07/2016. After receiving the approval of the U.P Public Service Commission order to promote of 144 persons were issued on 13/07/2016 with effect from 30/06/2016. It was further provided that the persons promoted by the said order would be kept on probation for a period of 2 years and the seniority in the cadre of Review Officer would be considered separately.
6. In order to prepare the seniority list of the cadre of Review Officers, a tentative seniority list was issued on 23/07/2016 inviting objections as per the provisions contained in U.P Government Servant Seniority Rules , 1991. Several objections were received from the direct recruit ts of 2013 batch with regard to grant of promotion of the petitioners with effect from a back date. To consider the objections received with regard to the tentative seniority list a three-member committee was constituted consisting of the Special Secretary, Food and Logistic Department, Special Secretary/Assistant Legal Adviser, Law and Legislative Department and Special Secretary, IRLA Secretariat. The committee duly considered the objections received with regard to the promotion of the petitioners on
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
