Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT
Ajay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 1.6.2018, rendered by Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 19/DB/2016 and Claim Petition No. 30/DB/2017. By the said judgment, the challenge thrown by the petitioners to the seniority list dated 7.6.2017 was rejected and it was held that inter se seniority of petitioners and private respondents was rightly determined in terms of Rule 7 of UTTARAKHAND GOVERNMENT SERVANTS SENIORITY RULES , 2002.
2. Brief facts of the case, as culled out from the impugned judgment, are that petitioners and private respondents were appointed to Group II post in the year 1999; petitioners were appointed on the said post on 17.12.1999, while private respondent no. 5 was so appointed on 11.1.1999. It is also not in dispute that respondent no. 5 was appointed on the result of earlier selection, while petitioners participated in a selection process, which was initiated later. Petitioners were subsequently promoted to a Group I post vide order dated 26.10.2005, while respondent no. 5 was promoted to a Group I post on 2.2.2006. Petitioners have challenged the final seniority list of Group I officers
Inter se seniority of promotees from multiple feeding cadres in one selection is determined by substantive appointment dates in their feeding cadres, not promotion order dates, per Rule 7.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of not unsettling long-standing seniority and the importance of timely challenges to seniority.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seniority of a government servant can be determined based on the rules in force at the time of promotion, and any conditions imposed in th....
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 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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the catch-up rule for seniority determination in the absence of specific provisions for consequential seniority in the service r....
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
