Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1067 (ALL)

In Re: State of U. P. v. .

2005-05-26

PRADEEP KANT, U.K.DHAON

body2005
JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kant, J. The seniority between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 6 on the post of Reader in Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, is the core issue involved in this petition. 2. Before dealing with the subject-matter in dispute we find it appropriate to place on record that the matter was earlier heard by this Bench and the order sheet reveals that several adjournments were asked for on behalf of Respondent No. 6 and lastly on 10th July, 2001, the application for adjournment was moved which was rejected by us by a detailed order of the same date. However, later on an application for transfer of the case from Lucknow Bench to Allahabad Bench under Clause 14 of the Allahabad High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, was moved, which application was allowed by Hon'ble the then Chief Justice on 23.1.2002. The matter was taken before the Apex Court by the Petitioner in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, which was allowed and the order of transfer passed by the Chief Justice was set aside. The matter has been sent back to this Bench for being heard and proceeded with, vide order dated 17th November, 2004. After the order passed by the Supreme Court, the matter has been listed again before us. The order sheet reveals that the office has reported on 3.2.2005 that notices to the counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents have been issued informing that the case is listed before Hon'ble the Senior Judge on 4.2.2005. The Senior Judge, Lucknow Bench, directed the office to constitute the Bench at an early date and thereafter the matter was listed before us on 17.2.2005. Sri Hemant Kumar Misra, who was also one of the counsel for Respondent No. 6 on that date, stated that now he has no instructions to argue the matter but he assured that he would inform the next date fixed to his client as well as to the counsel Sri K.C. Sinha, who was appearing for her since before. On his request the matter was adjourned and the same was listed on 9.3.2005 with the clear observation that since the matter has been sent to this Bench by the Supreme Court, the matter may not be adjourned for want of counsel from either side. Again on 9th March, 2005 Sri Hemant Kumar Misra informed that he has already informed his client Dr. Again on 9th March, 2005 Sri Hemant Kumar Misra informed that he has already informed his client Dr. Gauri Ganguli and Sri K.C. Sinh, her advocate at Allahabad about the date fixed, but none appeared before the Court. Sri Hemant Kumar Misra again made a request on behalf of Dr. Gauri Ganguli that some other date be fixed though he also stated that she had taken back the file and entire record from him a couple of years back. He confirmed that despite the information given to Dr. Gauri Ganguli and the counsel Sri K.C. Sinha, none has appeared today again. 3. Sri Umesh Chandra, learned senior advocate, apprised the Court that an application has been filed by the Respondent Dr. Gauri Ganguli in the Registry on 2.3.2005 in which she has stated that the matter has been sent by the Supreme Court before the same very Bench to be dealt with in the manner it may like and made the following prayer in the application: It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to proceed in the matter with it in such manner as it may think fit and proper, in the interest of justice. 4. The Court also took note of the order dated 17.2.2005 which had clarified that the case may not be adjourned on the date fixed, i.e. 9th March, 2005, for want of counsel on either side and also the fact that Sri Hemant Kumar Misra, locally engaged advocate had stated that his client had taken the file a couple of years back and he has no instructions to argue the matter and that he has given telephonic information to his client and the counsel at Allahabad but none appeared. 5. On 9th March, 2005, the Court heard the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri Umesh Chandra and adjourned the case, as Sri Shabihul Hasnain, learned Counsel for the State, asked for time to answer the arguments. While allowing Sri Umesh Chandra to argue the matter, the Court considered that the matter cannot be allowed to be lingered, particularly when the same has been directed to be heard by the Supreme Court. While fixing the next date, i.e. 22.3.2005, the Court again gave opportunity to Dr. While allowing Sri Umesh Chandra to argue the matter, the Court considered that the matter cannot be allowed to be lingered, particularly when the same has been directed to be heard by the Supreme Court. While fixing the next date, i.e. 22.3.2005, the Court again gave opportunity to Dr. Gauri Ganguli to either appear in person or through counsel, as she may desire, for putting her case on the date fixed. This opportunity was given to the Respondent No. 6 in the interest of justice, though no such request was made by her or on her behalf except by Sri Hemant Kumar Misra, who was no more the counsel appearing for her. The affording of such opportunity was with a view to give chance to the Respondent No. 6 to argue the matter, though in her application of 2.3.2005, i.e. moved 7 days before the date fixed (9.3.2005) she had already prayed that the matter may be proceeded with in the manner the Court thinks proper. The order sheet does not show that any hearing took place on 22.3.2005 but the matter was again listed on 8.4.2005 and the case was shown in the cause list with the name of parties and their counsel. Despite the listing of the case, none has responded on behalf of Respondent No. 6. Sri Umesh Chandra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State Sri Shabihul Hasnain and Dr. R.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Commission concluded their arguments. 6. Having brought on record, the circumstances under which the matter has proceeded with which is pending since the year 1998, we proceed to consider the merits of the case. 7. The Petitioner, Dr. Manju Verma was initially appointed as adhoc Lecturer in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in November, 1975, in the State Medical College and was posted as such at Mahararni Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi. In February, 1978, she was transferred in the same capacity by the State Government to Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. While working as adhoc Lecturer at Allahabad, the Petitioner was regularized on the post of Lecturer under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (On the Posts within the purview of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. While working as adhoc Lecturer at Allahabad, the Petitioner was regularized on the post of Lecturer under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (On the Posts within the purview of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. In December, 1980, the Petitioner was promoted as adhoc Reader in Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department and was posted at Baba Raghav Dass Medical College, Gorakhpur but on account of the death of her father-in-law she did not join at Gorakhpur and continued to work as Lecturer at Allahabad. In the meantime, an advertisement was issued by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad, for making appointment on the post of Reader in the Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Post Partum Programme). The Petitioner Dr. Manju Verma as well as Respondent No. 6, namely, Dr. Gauri Ganguli, both applied for being appointed as a direct recruit on the post of Reader for which a selection was held on 9th June, 1982. In the selection held on 9th June, 1982, the Petitioner was selected for appointment and was placed at Sl. No. 4 of the list of finally selected candidates by the Commission whereas one Dr. Sadhna Kala (Upraiti) was placed at Sl. No. 3 while Dr. (Smt.) Veena Mathur, Dr. (Smt.) Meera Agnihotri were placed at Sl. Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. One Dr. (Smt.) Sandhya Agarwal was placed in the waiting list. 8. Dr. (Smt.) Gauri Gauguli (Respondent No. 6), however, could not succeeded in the said selection and thus she stood rejected. 9. Dr. (Smt.) Sadhna Kala (Upraiti), who was at Sl. No. 3 of the list of finally selected candidates, however, did not join the post and consequently, the Petitioner, who was placed at Sl. No. 4, stood upgraded to Sl. No. 3. Despite the selection so made of the Petitioner, the State Government did not issue the appointment orders to the selected candidates and in the meantime, in November, 1982 and May, 1985, the State Government again appointed on adhoc basis Dr. Radha Jina, Dr. Kumkum Srivastava and Dr. Barun Sarkar as adhoc Readers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in State Medical Colleges. Later on, the selected candidates at Sl. Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Dr. (Smt.) Veena Mathur, Dr. Radha Jina, Dr. Kumkum Srivastava and Dr. Barun Sarkar as adhoc Readers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in State Medical Colleges. Later on, the selected candidates at Sl. Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Dr. (Smt.) Veena Mathur, Dr. (Smt.) Meera Agnihotri were offered appointment in pursuance of the selection of June, 1982 on 19th January, 1983, but even then the Petitioner was discriminated and was not given appointment as Reader in pursuance of the same very recommendation on 19th January, 1983 but at a later point of time, i.e. 14.8.1986, she was issued an appointment order as Reader on the basis of the recommendation of the Public Service Commission aforesaid and was posted at State Medical College, Jhansi. Since the vacancy on the post of Reader in the department concerned was likely to occur at Allahabad itself on account of promotion of Dr. (Smt.) Veena Mathur as Professor at S.N. Medical College, Agra and accordingly Dr. (Smt.) Veena Mathur was actually promoted in August, 1986 and was posted at Medical College, Agra, the Petitioner made a representation on 31.8.1986 for changing her posting from Jhansi to Allahabad, as her husband was also posted at Allahabad Medical College. On 3.4.1987, the State Government passed an order of posting of the petition as Reader in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Allahabad in supersession of the earlier posting order posting her at Jhansi on the same terms and conditions, which were attached to the order of appointment dated 14.8.1986 while posting the Petitioner at Jhansi. 10. The Petitioner's case is that though she was entitled for being given regular appointment in pursuance of the selection held by the Commission on 9th June, 1982 along with the other selected candidates against the vacancies existing in the State Medical Colleges but in a most arbitrary manner, adhoc appointments were given to Dr. Radha Jina and Dr. Kumkum Srivastava. The reason for their continuance, as disclosed by the Respondents, was the stay order granted in Writ Petition No. 6368 of 1982 filed by the Respondent No. 6 herself, as she was working as adhoc Reader at that time, though in fact in that writ petition only an stay order was passed staying the termination of Respondent No. 6 and thus did not permit any appointment to be made ignoring the claim of selected candidates. Again when the appointment order was issued to Dr. Veena Mathur and Dr. Again when the appointment order was issued to Dr. Veena Mathur and Dr. Meera Agnihotri on 19.1.1983, the Petitioner was discriminated and was not offered appointment till 14.8.1986. 11. Dr. Gauri Ganguli, Respondent No. 6, who was working as ad hoc Reader since the year 1976 also appeared in the selection held on 9th June, 1982 but she remained unsuccessful wherein the Petitioner stood selected. According to the case of Respondent No. 6 and that also of the State Government, the Respondent No. 6 is said to have been selected later on by the Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh in a subsequent selection held on 30.5.1986. In this selection the Petitioner had also applied for being selected but this time Respondent No. 6 stood selected but the Petitioner was kept in the waiting list. One Dr. Barun Sarkar and Dr. Sandhya Agarwal also stood selected. 12. Respondents' case is that Dr. Gauri Ganguli, Respondent No. 6, was given regular appointment on the post of Reader in pursuance of the said selection held on 30th May, 1986 and that is why she is senior to Dr. Manju Verma, the Petitioner, who joined at Allahabad on the post of Reader by virtue of appointment vide order dated 3.4.1987 on 4.4.1987. It would be appropriate to put on record at this place that it is admitted to all the parties including Respondent No.6 that in pursuance of the said selection dated 30.5.1986, she was not issued any appointment order nor any offer of appointment was given to her. 13. It is also on record that after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisations of Adhoc Promotions (On the posts within the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1988, Respondent No. 6 was regularized on the post of Reader by means of an order passed by the State Government on 12.1.1990. 14. The seniority of the two contesting parties, namely, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 6, has to be determined on the facts and circumstances and the background of the case, as stated above. 15. No seniority list of the Readers in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the State Medical Colleges was circulated till the year 1991 and it was only in the year 1991 and thereafter on 10.4.1992 that a seniority list was circulated and in both the seniority lists, the name of the Petitioner was shown below Dr. 15. No seniority list of the Readers in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the State Medical Colleges was circulated till the year 1991 and it was only in the year 1991 and thereafter on 10.4.1992 that a seniority list was circulated and in both the seniority lists, the name of the Petitioner was shown below Dr. Gauri Ganguly and in fact her name found place at Sl. No. 13 of the list whereas Dr. Sandhya Agarwal, Dr. Barun Sarkar and Dr. Gauri Ganguli were placed at Sl. Nos. 10, 11 and 12 respectively. The Petitioner feeling aggrieved by her placement in the seniority list, particularly the placement of Dr. Gauri Ganguli over and above her, made various representations but the representations were not considered which promoted the Petitioner to file the present writ petition for assigning the correct seniority and for giving her promotion on the post of Professor from the date when her juniors, namely, Dr. Sandhya Agarwal and Dr. Gauri Ganguli were given promotion. 16. During the pendency of this writ petition, the representation of the Petitioner was rejected on 2.12.1998 on the ground that the Petitioner did not join in pursuance of the appointment order dated 14.8.1986 and, in the meantime, Respondent No. 6 was given appointment in pursuance of the selection held in the year 1986 on the post of Reader in pursuance of which she joined on 9.9.1986 and since the Petitioner was again given appointment in the year 1987 in pursuance of which she joined on 4.4.1987, therefore, she is junior to Respondent No. 6. It is the further case of the Respondents that Dr. Gauri Ganguli was given adhoc promotion on the post of Professor on 3.4.1987 and on the vacancy so caused on the post of Reader, the Petitioner was given appointment, as such also she is junior to the Respondent No. 6. The State Government also clarified that in case the Petitioner had joined the post in pursuance of her first appointment letter, then she would have been senior to Dr. Gauri Ganguli but since she did not join on account of her personal reasons, therefore, she was not entitled for the seniority claimed and thus there was no occasion to change the seniority. 17. It was thereafter that provisional seniority list of Readers was published on 18.10.2000. Gauri Ganguli but since she did not join on account of her personal reasons, therefore, she was not entitled for the seniority claimed and thus there was no occasion to change the seniority. 17. It was thereafter that provisional seniority list of Readers was published on 18.10.2000. The Petitioner submitted representation against the said provisional seniority list whereas Dr. Gauri Ganguli, Respondent No. 6, also submitted representation on 26.10.2000. In this provisional seniority list, the date of appointment of the Petitioner was shown as 14.8.1986 and that of Respondent No. 6 was shown as 12.1.1990 but even then the Petitioner was placed below Respondent No. 6. 18. Since the State Government was not deciding the representation, therefore, this Court, vide order dated 2.11.2000 directed the State Government to finalize the seniority list keeping in mind the date of appointment, as indicated in the tentative seniority list. The State Government, however, decided the representation against the provisional seniority list, vide order dated 30.11.2000. The State Government, vide its order dated 30.11.2000 rejected the Petitioner's representation filed against the provisional seniority list dated 18.10.2000. The aforesaid two orders dated 2.12.1998 and 30.11.2000 have also been challenged by the Petitioner by amending the writ petition. 19. In this order dated 30.11.2000, the State Government, in fact, elaborated its earlier order dated 2.12.1998 by refusing to grant seniority to the Petitioner over and above Respondent No. 6 alleging that Respondent No. 6 was issued the appointment order on 14.8.1986 in pursuance of the selection held on 9th June, 1982 but since she did not join at Jhansi, therefore, her appointment on the post of Reader automatically stood cancelled in view of the terms of the appointment mentioned in the said order which stated that if the Petitioner does not join the post within one month, her appointment order shall automatically stand cancelled. According to the State Government, since the Petitioner did not join the post within the aforesaid period at Jhansi, therefore, her appointment stood cancelled and it was only her re-appointment which was made on 3.4.1987 in pursuance of which she joined on 4.4.1987 and, therefore, she was junior to Respondent No. 6 inasmuch as that Respondent No. 6 was appointed in pursuance of the selection held on 30.5.1986, in pursuance of which selection she joined on 9.9.1986. The State Government also made an observation that as a matter of fact, the Petitioner could not have been given appointment by the State Government after her appointment in pursuance of the appointment order dated 14.8.1986, stood automatically cancelled without sending requisition to the Public Service Commission and without having its recommendation and, therefore, joining of the Petitioner as Reader again the vacancy caused by adhoc promotion of Respondent No. 6 as Professor was irregular. 20. The office order dated 3.4.1987 is on record, which is in respect of three persons, namely, Dr. R.K. Mathur, Reader in Surgery, with whom this case has no concern, and promotion of Dr. Gauri Ganguli, Respondent No. 6 as adhoc Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and the posting of the Petitioner at Allahabad instead of Jhansi on the post of Reader against the vacancy caused because of the aforesaid promotion of Dr. Gauri Ganguli, Respondent No. 6, on the same terms and conditions, as were given in her original appointment order dated 14.8.1986. The aforesaid office order also says that it has been issued in supersession of the office order dated 21st March, 1987. The office order dated 21st March, 1987 says that the posting order of the Petitioner as Reader in Obstetrics Department in Rani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi dated 14.8.1986 is cancelled. 21. The main plank of the Respondents' argument is that since the Petitioner in pursuance of the selection held on 9.6.1982 did not join at the place of her posting at Jhansi in pursuance of appointment order issued on 14.8.1986 and, therefore, in terms of the conditions mentioned in the said order, the same stood cancelled on the expiry of the period during which she was supposed to join at the place of posting and, therefore, her appointment and consequently her joining in pursuance of the office order dated 3.4.1987 on 4.4.1987 was though an irregular appointment, was a fresh appointment and, therefore, the Petitioner cannot take advantage of her earlier appointment order dated 14.8.1986. The other reason for denying her seniority over Respondent No. 6 is that Respondent No. 6 was promoted on adhoc basis on the post of Professor on 3.4.1987, i.e. by the same office order and the Petitioner having been given appointment on the post of Reader on the vacancy so caused would be junior to the Respondent No. 6. The other reason for denying her seniority over Respondent No. 6 is that Respondent No. 6 was promoted on adhoc basis on the post of Professor on 3.4.1987, i.e. by the same office order and the Petitioner having been given appointment on the post of Reader on the vacancy so caused would be junior to the Respondent No. 6. It is also the case of the Respondents that Respondent No. 6, who was working as adhoc Reader since 1976 was given regular appointment in pursuance of the selection held by the Public Service Commission on 30.5.1986 on 9.9.1986 as against the appointment of the Petitioner on 4.4.1987 and, therefore, also the Respondent No. 6 is senior to the Petitioner. 22. It is not in dispute and as already observed, it is admitted to the parties including Respondent No. 6 that she was never issued any appointment order in pursuance of the selection held on 30.5.1986 in which Respondent No. 6 stood selected and the Petitioner was kept in the waiting list. This is also fortified by the fact that during the course of hearing of this petition, Respondent No. 6 filed a Writ Petition Bearing No. 23879 of 2001 at Allahabad praying for issuance of a direction to the Respondents which included the State Government to issue appointment order to her in pursuance of the selection of 30.5.1986. This writ petition was filed when the arguments in the present writ petition were being finally advanced and probably because the Respondent No. 6 felt that unless the appointment order is issued in pursuance of the said selection of 1986, and she is not given appointment in pursuance of the appointment order, she may not be treated to be an appointee of that selection. In this writ petition a Division Bench of the Court at Allahabad issued an interim direction for either issuing the appointment order or to show cause. We are informed that the appointment order has not been issued till date. We had already taken note in our order dated 10.7.2001 that the Respondent No. 6 did not implead the Petitioner in the writ petition filed by her at Allahabad, though she was claiming seniority over her. We have mentioned about the aforesaid writ petition only to indicate that in pursuance of the selection of 1986, at no point of time, she was offered appointment nor was ever appointed. We have mentioned about the aforesaid writ petition only to indicate that in pursuance of the selection of 1986, at no point of time, she was offered appointment nor was ever appointed. The record shows otherwise, i.e. she was treated as ad hoc Reader on promotion and in her capacity as such, her case for regularisation under the Regularisation Rules, 1988 was considered and she was regularized with immediate effect, i.e. with effect from 12.1.1990, i.e. the date of passing of the order of regularisation. In the regularisation order dated 12.1.1990, it was specifically provided that the seniority of Respondent No. 6 would be determined in accordance with Rule 7 of the Regularisation Rules of 1988. This negates the plea of Respondents that Respondent No. 6 was given appointment or was appointed on the post of Reader in pursuance of the selection held on 30.5.1986. 23. In the tentative seniority list, the date of appointment of the Petitioner was shown as 14.8.1986 and that of Respondent No. 6 was shown as 12.1.1990. This date of 12.1.1990 is the date of regularisation of the Respondent No. 6 on the post of Reader. The Respondents have not denied anywhere that Respondent No. 6 was not regularized by means of the aforesaid regularisation order with effect from 12.1.1990. 24. Regularisation Rules of 1988 and in particular Rule 7, says that the seniority shall be determined in accordance with the Service Rules and reads as under: 7. A person appointed under these rules, shall be entitled to seniority in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders, regulating conditions of service of persons regularly appointed in the service or on the post, and for this purpose selection under these rules shall be deemed to be selection under the said service rules or orders. 25. It is the common case of the parties that the Rules which are relevant for governing the seniority is the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991, therefore, the seniority has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the said Rules. 26. In the Seniority Rules, 1991, Rule 5 deals with the seniority of persons where the appointments are to be made by direct recruitment only in which the second proviso says that the persons selected in a subsequent selection shall be junior to the persons selected in the previous selection. 26. In the Seniority Rules, 1991, Rule 5 deals with the seniority of persons where the appointments are to be made by direct recruitment only in which the second proviso says that the persons selected in a subsequent selection shall be junior to the persons selected in the previous selection. Rule 6 deals with the seniority where appointment is made by promotion only from a single feeding cadre and Rule 7 deals with the determination of seniority where appointments are made by promotion only from several feeding cadres. Rule 8 deals with the seniority where appointments are to be made by promotion and direct recruitment both. 27. In the instant case, the Petitioner is direct appointee and Respondent No. 6 is a promottee. Since the seniority has to be determined on the post of Reader amongst the direct recruited candidates and the promotee candidates, there is no other rule, which would govern such determination except Rule 8. Rule 8 of the Seniority Rules, 1991 reads as under: 8. Seniority where appointments by promotion and direct recruitment- (1) Where according to the service rules appointments are made both by promotion and by direct recruitment, the seniority of persons appointed shall, subject to the provisions of the following sub-rules, be determined from the date of the order of their substantive appointments, and if two or more persons are appointed together, in the order in which their names are arranged in the appointment order: Provided that if the appointment order specifies a particular back date, with effect from which a person is substantively appointed that date will be deemed to be the date of order of substantive appointment and, in other cases, it will mean the date of issuance of the order: Provided further that a candidate recruited directly may lose his seniority if he fails to join without valid reasons, when vacancy is offered to him, the decision of the appointing authority as to the validity of the reasons shall be final. (2) The inter se seniority of persons appointed on the result of any one selection- (a) through direct recruitment, shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list prepared by the Commission or by the Committee, as the case may be; (b) by promotion, shall be as determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Rule 6 or Rule 7, as the case may be, accordingly as the promotion are to be made from a single feeding cadre or several feeding cadres. (3) Where appointments are made both by promotion and direct recruitment on the result of any one selection the seniority of promotees vis-a-vis direct recruits shall be determined in a cyclic order (the first being a promotee), so far as may be, in accordance with the prescribed rule for the two sources. .... .... .... .... 28. Sub-rules (2) and (3) of the aforesaid Rule are not attracted in the circumstances of the case and it is only Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 which is applicable. The aforesaid rule lays down in no ambiguous terms that the seniority of persons appointed by promotion and by direct recruitment shall be determined from the date of the order of their substantive appointment and if two or more persons are appointed together, in the order in which their names are arranged in the appointment order. The plea of the Respondents that Respondent No. 6 was a selectee of the selection held on 30.5.1986 stands rejected, as already observed that no appointment order in pursuance of the said selection was ever issued to her and since she was never appointed in pursuance of the said selection, her case for regularisation was considered treating her to be an adhoc Reader under the Regularisation Rules of 1988 wherein her services were regularized temporarily on 12.1.1990. 29. 29. Had the Respondent No. 6 been treated as a direct appointee of the selection of 30th May, 1986, her case could not have been considered for regularisation under the Regularisation Rules of 1988, as she would not have fallen in the field of eligibility for such consideration where the regularisation is covered by Rule 4 which says that any person who was appointed by promotion on ad hoc basis before January 1, 1985 and is continuing in service either on the post on which he was so promoted or on an equivalent or higher post on the date of the commencement of these rules, was eligible for regular promotion on the date of adhoc promotion and has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years service on the post or posts, shall be considered for regulate appointment by promotion in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available, on the basis of the record and suitability before any regular appointment by promotion is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders. 30. A directly recruited candidate is neither required to be regularized, he being a regular appointee nor would be fall in the field of eligibility under Rule 4 for being considered for regular appointment on the promoted post/higher post under the Regularisation Rules of 1988. The very fact that Respondent No, 6 was considered for regularisation under the aforesaid Rules of 1988, would mean and establish that she was not treated to be a direct appointee in pursuance of the selection held on 30th May, 1986 but was considered an adhoc promotee and would thus be deemed to have been substantively appointed on the post of Reader on 12.1.1990, i.e. the date of regularisation. The regularisation order does not say that the regularisation is being made with effect from any back date and rather it says that it is from the date of regularisation and, therefore, also her appointment, even on promotion, cannot be given effect to from any previous or back date, the same having not been mentioned in the regularisation order, which would again determine her date of substantive appointment as 12.1.1990. 31. Reliance has been placed on the case of Tagin Litin Vs. 31. Reliance has been placed on the case of Tagin Litin Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and another, (1996) 5 SCC 83 , wherein the question raised was about the appointment of the Petitioner on the post of Head Gaonburah wherein a note was put up before the Deputy Commissioner that the name of the Petitioner may be approved for Head Gaonburah and that of another person for Second Gaonburah since the vacancies had arisen. The Deputy Commissioner had approved the said proposal and had passed an order "issue appointment orders". This was followed by WT message from the office of the Deputy Commissioner to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, but thereafter he was suddenly removed. The case of the Petitioner was that he was appointed as Head Gaonburah by the Deputy Commissioner when he passed the order on January 31, 1994, approving the proposal of such appointment and directing that appointments orders be issued and that the WT message dated February 15, 1994, sent from the office of the Deputy Commissioner to the Additional Deputy Commissioner was the order of appointment of the Petitioner as Head Gaonburah. The Apex Court held that in order to be effective, the order of appointment should be communicated by the authority to the person concerned and until the said order is so communicated to him, it would be open to the concerned authority to reconsider the matter and later on rescind the order. In regard to the Respondent No. 6 also, no appointment order has been issued to her, in pursuance of her selection held on 30.5.1986. 32. After determining the date of substantive appointment of Respondent No. 6 on the post of Reader as 12.1.1990, from which date she was entitled to get seniority, we proceed to determine the date of substantive appointment of the Petitioner. 33. The Petitioner undisputedly was a finally selected candidate of the selection held on 9.6.1982 by the Public Service Commission and despite there being vacancies, adhoc appointments were given to Dr. Radha Jina and Dr. Kumkum Srivastava on 11.11.1982 on the pretext that there is a stay order of the Court whereas the stay order related to termination of service of Dr. Gauri Ganguli, Respondent No. 6, who was working as an adhoc Reader, in the writ petition filed by her, namely, Writ Petition No. 6686 of 1982, Dr. Radha Jina and Dr. Kumkum Srivastava on 11.11.1982 on the pretext that there is a stay order of the Court whereas the stay order related to termination of service of Dr. Gauri Ganguli, Respondent No. 6, who was working as an adhoc Reader, in the writ petition filed by her, namely, Writ Petition No. 6686 of 1982, Dr. Gauri Ganguli v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. as such there appears to be no reason for not giving appointment to the Petitioner in pursuance of the selection held in 1982 and to make adhoc appointment from outside. Even thereafter when the appointment orders were issued to the two selected candidates, namely, Dr. Veena Mathur and Dr. Meera Agnihotri, placed at Sl. Nos. 1 and 2 of the list of finally selected candidates, on 19.1.1983, the Petitioner was again not given any appointment. She was for the first time offered appointment on 14.8.1986 in pursuance of the same very selection but was directed to be posted at Jhansi. The Petitioner, because of her personal difficulties and on coming to know that a vacancy is likely to cause at Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, itself because of the promotion of Dr. Veena Mathur on the post of Professor, made a representation on 31.8.1986 for change of her posting from Jhansi to Allahabad. 34. The Petitioner was never communicated at any point of time that her appointment has been cancelled because of her not joining the post within 30 days, as per the appointment order nor she was given any posting order for Allahabad. However, on the vacancy being caused on the post of Reader because of adhoc promotion of Respondent No. 6 on the post of Professor on 3.4.1987, an office order was issued on that very date, both ordering adhoc promotion of the Respondent No. 6 as Professor and also posting the Petitioner at Allahabad. However, on the vacancy being caused on the post of Reader because of adhoc promotion of Respondent No. 6 on the post of Professor on 3.4.1987, an office order was issued on that very date, both ordering adhoc promotion of the Respondent No. 6 as Professor and also posting the Petitioner at Allahabad. The office order clearly stated that it has been issued in supersession of the earlier order dated 21.3.1987 and that her posting would be on the same terms and conditions, as mentioned in the appointment order dated 14.8.1986, meaning thereby that the Petitioner was treated to be an appointee of the selection of the year 1982 and her request for change of posting was accepted by the State Government, though at a later date on 3.4.1987 and she was allowed to join in pursuance thereof on 4.4.1987. 35. The plea of the Respondents that since the Petitioner did not join at Jhansi within 30 days from the date of issuance of the appointment order dated 14.8.1986 and, therefore, in terms of the conditions of the appointment order, her appointment order stood automatically cancelled is to be seen in the light of the fact that the State Government did not treat the appointment order as cancelled apparently because the Petitioner had already made the representation for change of the place of posting within the time provided for joining and as a consequence of which she was posted at Allahabad and was allowed to join, where she joined in pursuance of the office order dated 3.4.1987 on 4.4.1987. This is also evident by the fact that the office order dated 21.3.1987, which cancelled the posting of the Petitioner at Jhansi, only said that her posting as Reader in Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department, Jhansi issued, vide order dated 14.8.1986 is cancelled. The word used therein is posting (tainati) and not appointment (niyukti). Further the office order dated 3.4.1987 only superseded the earlier office order dated 21.3.1987, which only cancelled the posting of the Petitioner at Jhansi and not her appointment. 36. The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission also in its counter-affidavit has specifically stated that the appointment of the Petitioner was not cancelled either by the Commission or by the State Government. The Commission has also stated that the candidates selected in the 1986 selection (selection in which Respondent No. 6 was selected) could not be given appointment. 37. 36. The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission also in its counter-affidavit has specifically stated that the appointment of the Petitioner was not cancelled either by the Commission or by the State Government. The Commission has also stated that the candidates selected in the 1986 selection (selection in which Respondent No. 6 was selected) could not be given appointment. 37. The second proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Seniority Rules, 1991 says that a candidate recruited directly may lose his seniority if he fails to join without valid reasons, when vacancy is offered to him, the decision of the appointing authority as to the validity of reasons, shall be final. The Petitioner's representation, which was made within the period prescribed for joining, was accepted by the State Government and, therefore, it can very well be presumed that the State Government was satisfied with the reason of non-joining and once the State Government allowed the Petitioner to join, the failure on her part to join without any valid reason cannot be presumed, particularly when the State Government has not communicated any such reason to the Petitioner nor has mentioned the same except in the order dated 2.12.1998 and 30.11.2000, which are impugned in the present writ petition. The Petitioner thus would be treated to be an appointee of 14.8.1986. 38. Even if we presume that the Petitioner's appointment was a fresh appointment, or re-appointment by means of the office order dated 3.4.1987 in pursuance of which she joined as regular Reader on 4.4.1987, the Respondent No. 6 still cannot be treated as senior to her in the cadre of Reader, in view of our finding that Respondent No. 6 was not an appointee of the selection of 30th May, 1986, nor was a direct recruit on the post of Reader, but being an adhoc promotee on the post of Reader since the year 1976, was regularised under the Regularisation Rules, 1988 with effect from 12.1.1990. That being so, her date of substantive appointment on the post of Reader can be none else than 12.1.1990. That being so, her date of substantive appointment on the post of Reader can be none else than 12.1.1990. Thus, on the reasoning of the State Government itself that the Petitioner if had joined in pursuance of her appointment order dated 14.8.1986, she would have been senior to Respondent No. 6, but since she joined on 4.4.1987, she has become junior to the Respondent No. 6, it can validly be held that the ad hoc promotion on the post of Professor of Respondent No. 6 on 3.4.1987, has no relevance in determining the seniority of the two candidates in the cadre of Reader. Provenly the Petitioner joined the post of regular Reader on 4.4.1987 and Respondent No. 6 had been given regular appointment on the post of Reader by virtue of her regularisation only on 12.1.1990. The delayed re-appointment, a term which has been used by the State Government, which in fact is only delayed joining by the Petitioner on the post of Reader, would not make her junior to the Respondent No. 6, as even this delayed joining on 4.4.1987 in pursuance of her substantive appointment, is much before the date of regularisation of Respondent No. 6 on the post of Reader, i.e., 12.1.1990. 39. The conclusion, therefore, is that if the date of substantive appointment of the Petitioner is taken as 14.8.1986 in pursuance of the selection held on 9th June, 1982 or if it is taken as 4.4.1987, which joining is also in pursuance of the same very selection, the State Government, she would still be senior to Respondent No. 6, whose date of substantive appointment on the post of Reader is undisputedly 12.1.1990. 40. 40. We do not find any reason to deny seniority due to the Petitioner simply on the ground that the State Government while accepting the request of the Petitioner for change of the posting from Jhansi to Allahabad and while issuing the office order dated 3.4.1987, did not go through the process of regular selection by sending requisition to the Public Service Commission and having its recommendation for the reason that the selection of the Petitioner is the selection held on 9th June, 1982, which has not been doubted by any party and it is pursuance of the said very selection that the State Government itself allowed her joining on 4.4.1987 on the same terms and conditions which were attached to the appointment order dated 14.8.1986. 41. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri Umesh Chandra, during the course of arguments has stated that Dr. Sandhya Agarwal and Dr. Barun Sarkar had taken voluntary retirement from the Government service and, therefore, no relief is passed against them. We accordingly refrain ourselves from entering into the question of seniority of the Petitioner as against the aforesaid two Respondents. 42. Having found that the Petitioner is senior to Respondent No. 6 in the cadre of Readers, and she has wrongly been placed below her in the seniority list, we quash the order dated 2.12.1998 and 30.11.2000, Annexures 14 and 15 respectively passed by the State Government and direct that the State Government shall correct the seniority of the two persons in the cadre of Reader forthwith by placing the Petitioner over and above Respondent No. 6. As a result of the determination of the seniority so made, the Petitioner would also be entitled to all consequential benefits and promotion on the higher post from the date persons junior to her have been promoted, which exercise shall also be done forthwith expeditiously and without any unreasonable delay. 43. The writ petition is allowed. Costs easy.