Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the order passed by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench that had directed a seniority list to be prepared by applying the rota system to direct recruits and promotees appointed in one recruitment year.

The top court held that the 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. 

The bench of Justices B.R Gavai and B.V Nagarathna while referring to Pawan Pratap Singh & others vs. Reevan Singh & other, (2011)3 SCC 267 opined that "date of entry in a particular service or the date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or the other or between one group of officers and the other recruited from different sources”.

It was also held that 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.

The respondents in the writ petition (here appellants) were the direct recruits who 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.

In the pertinent matter, the writ petitioners who were initially appointed as Consolidators in the Consolidation Department were promoted to the post of Assistant Consolidation Officers (ACO) against the recruitment year 1997-1998. Aggrieved by the direct recruitment of the same year, the petitioners approached the High Court, claiming that their seniority was above the direct recruits.

The direct appointment was alleged to be erroneous on the ground that the direct recruits were given seniority over the promotees. It was contended that the cyclic order mandated by seniority Rule 8(3) of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 whereby the names of a promotee were to be followed by a direct recruitee was not complied with. While the State and the direct recruits argued that the seniority has to be assigned on the basis of the year of vacancy.

Therefore, in the case of direct recruits, though for an earlier year there existed vacancy for them; they were appointed subsequently and as such, they were given seniority in the quota available in the earlier years.

The Single Judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court found that the said exercise was carried out in the year 2003; however, the same had been abruptly changed through the seniority list dated 29th July 2005, impugned before the High Court.  Accordingly, while allowing the writ petitions, court quashed and set aside the impugned seniority list dated 29th July 2005. The Single Judge further directed the promotees of 1997 to be placed above the direct recruits of that year. The same was challenged before the Top Court, and thus the present appeal.

The Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal on not finding any merit, held, “When the 1992 Rules specifically emphasised 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 Title: AMIT SINGH vs. RAVINDRA NATH PANDEY & ORS. ETC.