The court established that reversion due to a revision in the seniority list is not a measure of punishment and can be challenged. It also upheld the constitutional validity of Section 5(5-B) of the 1976 Act, emphasizing that an employee could seek relief through the High Court in extreme and rare cases.

Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 424 of 2019 dated 28.02.2019. The appellant herein had filed WPSS No. 424 of 2019 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the third respondent in January 2013, and the impugned order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Superintendent of Police; and for a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to disturb the petitioners from discharging their services in their respective promoted posts.

2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioners joined as Group D/Messenger on 14.11.2007. They were, thereafter, sent for training on 17.11.2007. A tentative seniority list was issued on 30.05.2011of Group IV employees wherein the seniority of the private respondent was shown lower than the appellant-writ petitioner. A final seniority list is said to have been issued on 01.11.2011 wherein the private respondents are said to have been shown as junior to the appellant-writ petitioners herein. In the tentative seniority list prepared on 23.10.2013 also, the appellant-writ petitioners appear to have been shown above the private respondents. Some of the petitioners were duly promoted to the post of Workshop Assistant from their posts of Messenger in the Class IV posts, and they were sent for training for six months for Grade-III Operator Course in the Central Workshop.

3. The 5th respondent filed WPSS No. 749 of 2018 seeking a direction from this Court to treat him on par with the appellant-writ petitioners, and to place him at serial No. 4 in the seniority list dated 27.03.2018. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 20.04.2018, directed the respondents to proceed with the exercise of promotion which was made subject to the outcome of the main writ petition. Thereafter, the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 30.10.2018 whereby the learned single Judge directed that, before making promotion to the post of Work Hand, the seniority list must be prepared; in case the initial appointment letter of 14.11.2007 is not based on any rational criteria, seniority should be determined in accordance with the Uttaranchal Government Servants Seniority Rules, 2002; and if there are candidates with equal marks, or everything remains equal between the candidates, what would matter, in determining their inter-se seniority, is their date of birth, meaning thereby that a candidate who is senior in age would be given preference in seniority.

4. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to determine the seniority, after hearing all those including the petitioners therein, and to make promotions thereafter. The learned single Judge made it clear that the date of joining would not be a relevant date for determining seniority. In compliance with the said order, a joint seniority list was prepared by the 3rd respondent in January 2019 amalgamating the two lists of Kumaun and Garhwal Region. It is the appellant-writ petitioners’ case that they were not parties to WPSS No. 749 of 2018, nor were they provided an opportunity of hearing by the 3rd respondent. As a consequence thereof, a seniority list was prepared in January 2019, and the petitioners, who were earlier promoted to Group III posts, were reverted to Class IV posts by the impugned order dated 18.02.2019, questioning which they invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

5. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that the order of reversion passed against the petitioners was in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in WPSS No. 749 of 2018 dated 30.10.2018; the controversy was regarding the interse seniority between the appellants-writ petitioners and the private respondents; a perusal of the order of reversion revealed that the parties were heard in person; and, since the issue involved related to determination of interse seniority between th