[U.P Govt Servant Seniority Rules] No Provision For Finding Authority To Redetermine Seniority After Final List Has Been Prepared: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has recently held that under the U.P Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 once a seniority list is published, the authority publishing the same becomes functus officio and cannot reagitate the seniority list again and again.

Justice Alok Mathur held

“On perusal of the U.P Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991, we find that there is no provision for review of the final seniority list which has been once prepared after following the procedure prescribed under rule 5, meaning thereby that once a final seniority list has been issued after deciding the objections filed by the concerned parties against the tentative seniority list, finding authority becomes functious officio and does not retain any power to repeatedly exercise the same power to redetermine the seniority between the same group of persons again and again.”

It also held that granting seniority from back date cannot always be said to be illegal or arbitrary. It must be traceable to a statutory rule, held the Court.

Factual Background

In 1990, petitioner were appointed on the post of Junior Grade clerk in the Secretariat Administration Department and were promoted based on seniority to the post of Assistant Review Officer in 2005. Subsequently, vide letter dated 27.06.2016, the exercise of promoting petitioners as Review Officer was initiated, and was to be concluded by 30.06.2017.

After approval of the U.P Public Service Commission 144 persons promoted on 13.07.2016 with effect from 30.06.2016 on a probation period of 2 years. Seniority in the said cadre was to be considered separately. Several objections were received from the batch of 2013 against the tentative seniority list of the petitioners regarding their backdated promotion. All objections were rejected, and the seniority list was published on 05.08.2016. objections were invited for a 2^nd and 3^rd time and were rejected. Final seniority list was published on 11.08.2022.

After confirming the seniority list thrice, the State Government sought to reconsider the issue of grant of promotion of the petitioners on the post of Review Officer from the back date. Notice was issued to the petitioners seeking response as to why they should not be given promotions from 13.07.2016.

Petitioners responded stating that representations were made to conduct and conclude the promotion process of the batch before 30.06.2016. Reliance was placed on Rule 8 of the Seniority Rules of 1991 to state that promotions can be made from back date.

On 09.08.2023, the objections by the petitioners were rejected and their promotions were made effective from 13.07.2016. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Sudhakar Rao and others vs U. Govind Rao and others to observe that no promotion can be given back date. It was observed that UPPCS had not quoted any rule in its order to grant such promotions at the first instance.

Subsequently, the amended seniority list was circulated which downgraded the petitioners. Objections field by the petitioners were rejected and the final seniority list was published on 06.09.2023 placing them lower in rank than the direct recruits of 2013. Accordingly, the petitioners approached the High Court.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that the impugned order effected 144 persons whose date of promotion was changed from 30.06.2016 to 13.07.2016.

The Court observed that every administrative action is divisible into two parts: one is the ministerial action(process) where there is room for exercising discretion in choosing alternate course of action and second is the administrative decision which is based on objective standards. It observed that an administrative act is revocable whereas judicial or quasi-judicial decision has certain finality attached to it.

Perusing Rule 9 of the U.P Government Servant to Seniority Rules, 1991, the Court held that process of publishing the seniority list is an administrative decision as it includes due application of mind after considering relevant rules and objections filed by the interested parties, and places an obligation to pass a reasoned order.

The Court relied on the principle of res judicata and observed that

“The principle of res judicata envisages that a judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction directly upon a point would create a bar as regards a plea, between the same parties in some other matter in another court, where the said plea seeks to raise afresh the very point that was determined in the earlier judgment.”

The Court held that once the issue of seniority had been settled by the respondents and had also been reconsidered twice and settled, they were estopped from reagitating the same for a 4^th time. It was held that the Seniority Rules 1991 do not provide for review of seniority list once its finalised thereby making the authority making the list functus officio once the final seniority list is published.

“There may be occasions to redraw the seniority list, to include or exclude certain groups or persons from the seniority list, as per judicial determination, or some other fortuitous circumstance making the said exercise necessary, but with regard to the objections once decided while preparing the seniority list, cannot be reopened subsequently.”

The Court noted that the direct recruits of 2013 batch had earlier filed writ petitions against placement of petitioners above them in the seniority list. it was observed that though note was taken of the pendency of the writ petition, the State Government proceeded with calling and rejecting the objections of the 2013 batch and publishing the seniority list in 2022.

In P. Sudhakar Rao and others vs U. Govind Rao and others, the Supreme Court had held that weightage to past service can only be used for promotion and for seniority.

In Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh, the Supreme Court held that

“(iv) The seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service rules. It is so because seniority cannot be given on retrospective basis when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre and by doing so it may adversely affect the employees who have been appointed validly in the meantime.”

Justice Mathur held that granting seniority from back date must be traceable to a statutory rule and is not per se illegal or arbitrary. It was held that Rule 8 of Seniority Rules 1991 empowers the State Government to make appointments from back date which is deemed to the date of substantive appointment.

Citing the Latin phrase “Stare decisis et non quieta movere” which means that seniority which has been settled cannot be disturbed after the lapse of many years, the Court held that in case of the petitioners, the seniority was unsettled after a lapse of 7 years which is not permissible.

Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed and the seniority of the petitioners was restored as per the original seniority list.

Case Title: Shiv Datt Joshi And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy., Secretariat Administration Dept. Lko And Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 82 [WRIT - A No. - 9193 of 2023]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 82

Appearances: Gaurav Mehrotra assisted by Ms. Ritika Singh, counsel for petitioners, Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, Additional Advocate General for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, Akhilesh Kumar Kalra, counsel appearing for the private respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Order