Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Ashutosh Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Alok Mathur, J.
1. Heard Dr. Lalta Prasad Mishra, and Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Avinash Singh Vishen on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P..
2. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that in pursuance of advertisement dated 11/01/2016 issued by the U.P Public Services Commission for appointment to various posts including the post of Naib-Tehsildar the petitioners had applied and appeared in the recruitment exam and were declared selected. In the select list prepared by the Public Service Commission the names of the petitioners find mention at serial No. 33, 35, 108, 115, 152 and 186 respectively. It has been submitted that the appointment letters to the petitioners were issued on the various dates between 03/09/2019 and 04/03/2021. It was submitted that the anomaly was committed by the State as appointment letters were issued randomly to the candidates whose documents stood verified. This resulted in issuance of appointment letters randomly permitting persons much lower in the select list prepared by the U.P Public Service Commission to join much prior to oth
Promotion in public service must adhere to seniority principles, and arbitrary actions undermining this principle are impermissible.
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.
Notional service can be included in the calculation of eligibility for promotion, and administrative delays should not penalize an employee's right to promotion.
Promotion processes must adhere to established guidelines, ensuring fair consideration for all eligible candidates. Clubbing of vacancies across years violates process integrity, and resultant promot....
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.
The court reaffirmed that temporary or ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority rights, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory rules for public service appointments.
Promotions must be made in accordance with the merit-cum-seniority list prepared as per Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 26.01.2009, and ignoring seniority to promote juniors is a violation of the rule p....
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
