Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, ALOK MAHRA
Dharmendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ challenges amended rule 14(1) seniority interpretation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. mt branch distinct cadre; substantive appointment post-training. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. seniority from feeder cadre per 2002 government rules. (Para 7) |
| 4. seniority from substantive entry into mt cadre only. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. quash seniority list; prepare fresh per rules. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
Alok Mahra, J.
By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring amended Rule 14 (1) of the Uttarakhand Police Motor Transport Branch Subordinate Services Rules , 2018 (as amended in 2024) to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional in the manner in which it has been interpreted and applied by the State authorities while determining seniority of Constable Drivers vide order dated 04.06.2025. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the seniority list dated 04.06.2025.
2. The core grievance of the petitioners is that inter se while determining seniority, the respondents have misconstrued the expression “substantive appointment” occurring
In separate motor transport branch cadre governed by special rules, seniority determined from date of substantive appointment to branch after selection and training, not parent cadre date.
The court established that supplementary examination marks must be included in seniority calculations for candidates who completed their training within the prescribed period.
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.
Vested rights from recruitment advertisements must be respected and seniority must be determined based on established rules in force at the time of recruitment, which cannot be altered retroactively ....
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 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.
Amendments favoring in-service candidates in seniority over direct recruits violated constitutional equality, necessitating merit-based revisions.
The seniority of Drivers can be maintained at a district level as per statutory rules despite prior practices to the contrary.
Seniority for transferred employees is determined by the date of joining in the new department, not by prior seniority in the former position.
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
