Inter Se Seniority Of Direct Recruits And Promotees In A Particular Service Has To Be Determined As Per The Service Rules : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees in a particular service has to be determined as per the service rules.

The writ petitioners before the Allahabad High Court were initially appointed as Consolidators in the Consolidation Department in various districts. They were promoted to the post of ACOs on various dates in the year 1997. Direct recruits were directly appointed to the post of ACOs, on the basis of the recommendation of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission and as per the recruitment process under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1992 Rules"). The direct recruits were appointed on 18th August 1997. As such, both the promotees as well as the direct recruits came in the cadre of the ACOs in the recruitment year of 1997-1998, i.e. between 1 st July 1997 and 30th June 1998.

The writ petitioners approached the High Court, claiming that their seniority was above the direct recruits of the same recruitment year. Their contention was that the seniority was required to be given in accordance with Rule 8(3) of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 and their names had to be placed in a cyclic order, i.e. a promotee followed by a direct recruitee. Allowing the writ petitions, the High Court set aside the impugned seniority list and directed that the promotees of 1997 to be placed above the direct recruits of that year. The Division Bench, in appeal, upheld the findings of the Single Judge, but modified the same to the extent that the State shall apply rota system to direct recruits and promotees appointed in one recruitment year.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench observed that the inter se seniority between the promotees and the direct recruits will have to be determined in accordance with the 1992 Rules.

"The 1992 Rules fix the quota of 67% for direct recruits and 33% for promotees. A "year of recruitment" has been defined to be a period of twelve months, commencing from the first day of July of the calendar year and as such, in the present case, the year of recruitment would be from 1st of July of 1997 to 30th of June 1998.", the court said.

While upholding the High Court judgment, the bench further observed:

When the 1992 Rules specifically emphasized that, where in any year of recruitment, appointments were to be made both by direct recruitment and by promotion, regular appointments could not have been made unless selections were made from both the sources and a combined list was to be prepared in accordance with Rule 18 of the 1992 Rules, the seniority list dated 29th July 2005, which provided a higher seniority to the direct recruits, is, for the aforesaid reasons, not sustainable in law.

Case details

Amit Singh vs Ravindra Nath Pandey | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 953 | CA 8324-8327 OF 2022 | 11 Nov 2022 | Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna 

For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sushant Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Lomes, Adv. Mr. Ankur Yadav, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Goel, Adv. AOR Mr. Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Adv, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR

Headnotes

Service Law - Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992 - Inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees in a particular service has to be determined as per the service rules -When the 1992 Rules specifically emphasized that, where in any year of recruitment, appointments were to be made both by direct recruitment and by promotion, regular appointments could not have been made unless selections were made from both the sources and a combined list was to be prepared in accordance with Rule 18 of the 1992 Rules -  The seniority list which provided a higher seniority to the direct recruits is not sustainable in law. (Para 25)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment