Judgment [Per: Hon'ble V.K. Maheshwari, Vice Chairman (J)] 1. Inter-se seniority amongst the promoted and direct recruited Assistant Engineers is under challenge in the present claim petition. 2. The facts as have been stated in the petition are that the petitioners joined the Garhwal Jal Sansthan as Junior Engineers on 01.11.1980 against the substantive posts. However, at that time, the service conditions were governed by executive instructions as there were no service rules. In the year 1997, the Centralized Service Rules were framed. Subsequently, U.P. Hill Regions sub-cadre was also created and petitioners were allocated the said cadre. Thereafter, a final seniority list pertaining to Junior Engineers serving in UP. Hill Sub cadre was issued on 31.1.1996, which remained in force even after creation of State of Uttarakhand. The Centralized Service rules were adopted by the State of Uttarakhand also, but later on Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Abhiyantran Sewa Niyamawali, 2011 were framed, which were enforced on 2.12.2011. Under these rules, there were two sources for the recruitment of Assistant Engineers, one by promotion of junior engineers and other by direct recruitment. Both these sources have equal quota in the vacancies. Rule-26 of the above mentioned rules provides that inter-se seniority of Assistant Engineers shall be determined from the date of substantive appointment. 3. The petitioners were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 11.3.2012, while 20 more Assistant Engineers were recruited by direct recruitment on 3.06.2011 and 3 more were recruited on 15.7.2011. The provisional seniority list of Assistant Engineers from both sources of recruitment was issued and objections were invited. The petitioners filed objections. However, the objections of the petitioners were overruled and final seniority list was issued wherein the petitioners have been placed below the private respondents' no. 3 and 4, Sri Ajay Kumar and Sri Santosh Kumar. The facts that the petitioners were substantively appointed on 11.3.2011, while the private respondents Ajay Kumar was appointed on 15.7.2011 and Santosh Kumar on 3.6.2011 was ignored. The petitioners by way of amendment have also impleaded the private respondents no. 5 to 17. Therefore, the petitioners preferred this claim petition and prayed that the seniority list at Annexure-1 be quashed. 4. The petition has been opposed on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 only. Despite giving sufficient time, no written statement has been filed on behalf of private respondent no. 3 and 4. 5 to 17. Therefore, the petitioners preferred this claim petition and prayed that the seniority list at Annexure-1 be quashed. 4. The petition has been opposed on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 only. Despite giving sufficient time, no written statement has been filed on behalf of private respondent no. 3 and 4. The written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2, which has been adopted by the respondent no. 1 also. It has been stated in this written statement that the petition has been filed on false and frivolous grounds by concealing the material facts. In fact, the controversy in the petition is regarding inter-se seniority of Assistant Engineers amongst the promotees and directly recruited in the same selection year i.e. 2010-11. 5. It has further been stated that after creation of the State, two bodies named as Garhwal Jal Sansthan and Kumoun Jal Sansthan were in existence and they were amalgamated in one body named as The Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan vide notification dated 26.8.2002. On 7.11.2002, a new Corporation named as Uttaranchal Peyjal Sansthan Vikas and Nirman Nigam was constituted and Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan became part of it. Earlier the service conditions of the employees were governed by Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan Employees Service Conditions Rules, 2004, which was enforced on 26.8.2004. Later on, these rules were replaced by Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Engineering Service Rules, 2011. After the enforcement of these rules, the Uttar Pradesh Palika Evam Jal Sansthan Abhiyantran (Kendriyat) Sewa Niyamawali, 1996 were superseded. It is further stated that the petitioners were promoted, while the private respondents no. 3 and 4 were appointed by direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers for the selection year 2010-11. The inter-se seniority amongst the direct recruitment and promotees is to be governed by the Uttaranchal Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 and Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Engineers Service Rules, 2011. It is further stated that the inter-se seniority of the promottees and directly recruited Assistant Engineers cannot be determined solely on the basis of date of substantive appointment. In fact, these rules provide that direct recruits and promotees shall be placed in a cyclic order, which is explained under rule 20 and 24 of the Rules of 2011. In case, the promottees are placed above the direct recruits, it will be not possible to maintain the prescribed quota of 50% in each source of recruitment. In fact, these rules provide that direct recruits and promotees shall be placed in a cyclic order, which is explained under rule 20 and 24 of the Rules of 2011. In case, the promottees are placed above the direct recruits, it will be not possible to maintain the prescribed quota of 50% in each source of recruitment. The petitioners have been rightly placed in the seniority list, which is drawn in accordance with the provisions of Rule 24(4) of the Rules of 2011 and the provisions contained in the Uttaranchal Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002. There is no illegality or irregularity in fixation of seniority; therefore, petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 6. The newly added respondents no. 5, 7, 8, 10, 13 and 16 have filed their written statement. They have supported the case of the petitioners. None of the other respondents have filed any written statement, neither contested the petition, though, the counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondents no. 4, 14 and 17. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record carefully. The facts as averred in the petition are admitted to both the parties. The petitioners and some of the private respondents no. 5, 7, 8, 10 and 13 and 16 had joined the service as Junior Engineers in year 1980 and were promoted on the post of Assistant Engineers on 11.3.2011. The private respondent no. 3, 4 and other respondents were recruited directly to the post of Assistant Engineer. The respondent no. 3 was recruited on 15.7.2011 and private respondent no. 4 was recruited on 3.6.2011. 8. First of all, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the seniority cannot be determined on the basis of the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Engineering Service Rules, 2011, as has been done in the present case. In this contest, it is stated that before the enforcement of these rules, the service conditions of the petitioners were governed by the Uttar Pradesh Palika and Jal Sansthan Jalkal Abhiyantran (Centralized) Service Rules, 1996. It is further stated that the petitioners were promoted and the respondent no. 3 and 4 were directly recruited under the provisions of the abovementioned rules of 1996, and not under the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Engineering Service Rules, 2011. It is further contended that the Govt. It is further stated that the petitioners were promoted and the respondent no. 3 and 4 were directly recruited under the provisions of the abovementioned rules of 1996, and not under the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Engineering Service Rules, 2011. It is further contended that the Govt. cannot frame rules, which are not consistent with the earlier rules or which put the petitioners in disadvantageous position. So first of all, we have to see as to whether the Centralized Service Rules of 1996 were applicable in the present case or not. In this regard, it is important to mention that initially the petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineers under the provisions of aforesaid Centralized Service rules of 1996 and even after the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, these rules were adopted, but in the year 2004, new service rules under the title 'Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Employees Services Rules, 2004' were framed, which were enforced on 13.10.2004. After the enforcement of these rules, the service conditions of the parties were governed under these rules. Though, the petitioners were appointed under the provisions of Centralized Services Rules of 1996, but in 2004, after the enforcement of new rules, the service conditions of the parties were governed under the provisions of new Rules. These rules have never been challenged. So, now the petitioners cannot be permitted to contend that Govt. does not have any right to frame new rules. It is also not clear as to how the petitioners have been put in disadvantageous position. Therefore, we are not inclined to hold that Service conditions of the petitioners should always be governed under the provisions of Centralized Service Rules of 1996. It is the settled law that the State Govt. has right to re-frame or modify the existing rules and service conditions of the employees will have to be governed under the provisions of the rules framed by the Govt. from time to time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. S.S. Uppal & others (1996) 2 SCC, 168 held that the seniority is to be governed under the existing rules and not under the rules under which initial appointments are made. Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case P.U. Joshi and others Vs. from time to time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. S.S. Uppal & others (1996) 2 SCC, 168 held that the seniority is to be governed under the existing rules and not under the rules under which initial appointments are made. Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case P.U. Joshi and others Vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad & others, 2003(2) Recent Services Judgments, 245 have clearly held that there is no right in the employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of service should be forever the same as the one when he entered in the service for all purposes. It has further been held that a govt. servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service rules. Thus, it becomes clear that the State Govt. has right to frame the rules and the State of Uttarakhand has exercised this right by framing the new rules in 2004. Therefore, we are of the considered view that after the enforcement of the 2004 rules, the service conditions of the parties were governed by these rules and not by the Centralized Services Rules, 1996. It is also important to mention that after the enforcement of Rules, 2004, the State Govt. has again framed separate rules for the Engineering Service in the department known as Jal Sansthan Engineering Service Rules, 2011 and these rules were enforced on December 02, 2011. At present, these rules are applicable, but the petitioners were promoted and the respondents no. 3 and 4 were recruited before the enforcement of these rules. At that time, the rules of 2004 were in existence, therefore, conditions of appointment and the seniority of the parties will be governed by the Rules of 2004. 9. The Rule-20 of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Employees Services Rules, 2004 provides the procedure of recruitment where there are more than one sources for recruitment. At that time, the rules of 2004 were in existence, therefore, conditions of appointment and the seniority of the parties will be governed by the Rules of 2004. 9. The Rule-20 of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Employees Services Rules, 2004 provides the procedure of recruitment where there are more than one sources for recruitment. The above-mentioned rules reads as under:- 20- fu;qfDr & ¼1½ ekSfyd fjfDr;ksa ds gksus ij] fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh mRrjkapy ty laLFkku lsokvksa esa fu;qfDr;ka fofu;e 18 ds v/khu rS;kj dh x;h lwph ls] vkSj fofu;e 19 ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj] inksUufr }kjk djsxkA ijUrq tgka fdlh ekeys esa inksUufr vkSj lh/kh HkrhZ nksuksa ds }kjk gh fu;qfDr dh tkuh gks rks mRrjkapy ty laLFkku inksUufr vkSj lh/kh HkrhZ okys vH;FkhZ dks nksuksa esa ls ;FkklaEHko ckjh&ckjh ls vH;FkhZ dks ysdj ,slh fjfDr;ksa esa fu;qDr djsxkA vH;FkhZ mlh dze ls fy;s tk;sxsa ftl dze ls muds uke lwph esa gksa vkSj igyk vH;FkhZ inksUur vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ls fy;k tk;sxkA ¼2½ fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh ,slh vLFkk;h fjfDr;ksa esa Hkh] ftudh vof/k N% lIrkg ls vf/kd gks] fofu;e 19 ds v/khu inksUufr ds fy;s pqus x;s O;fDr;ksa esa ls fu;qfDr;ka dj ldrk gS% ijUrq ;fn ,slh fu;qfDr ds fy;s dksbZ vuqeksfnr vH;FkhZ miyC/k u gks rks fu;qDr izkf/kdkjh ,sls vH;FkhZ dh fu;qfDr dj ldrk gS tks mRrjkapy ty laLFkku lsokvksa esa LFkk;h rkSj ij HkrhZ ds fy;s bl fofu;ekoyh ds v/khu ik= gks] bl micU/k ds v/khu lqlaxr fu;eksa ds vUrxZr fu;qfDr;ka dj ldrk gSA 10. In the present case, the petitioners were promoted while the private respondents no. 3 and 4 were directly recruited therefore, they are governed by the above-mentioned rules as regards the appointment is concerned. In this regard, it has also been contended on behalf of the respondents that the promoted and directly recruited persons have been placed in the cyclic order as has been provided under the above mentioned rule. It is true that the respondents have placed the parties in the cyclic order. But in the present petition, the important question is as to whether placing the parties in cyclic order is justified or not. It is another important question as to whether it is justified to determine the parties only in accordance with the cyclic order. It is true that the respondents have placed the parties in the cyclic order. But in the present petition, the important question is as to whether placing the parties in cyclic order is justified or not. It is another important question as to whether it is justified to determine the parties only in accordance with the cyclic order. As regards the fixation of seniority is concerned, Rule 23 of the above-mentioned rule provides that the seniority shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Uttarakhand Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002. Thus, it becomes clear that the seniority of the parties should be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in the Uttaranchal Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002. Apart from the Rule-23 as mentioned above, Rule-3 of Uttarakhand Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 is also important, which states that the previsions of these rules shall have the overriding effect of other rules. It means that whatever contained in Rules regarding the appointment, the seniority has to be determined strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Uttaranchal Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002. 11. It is admitted to both the parties that promotees as well as direct recruits have been appointed against the substantive posts. Consequently, Rule-8 of the Uttarakhand Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 is applicable regarding the determination of the seniority and it provides the procedure for determination of seniority. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002. 11. It is admitted to both the parties that promotees as well as direct recruits have been appointed against the substantive posts. Consequently, Rule-8 of the Uttarakhand Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 is applicable regarding the determination of the seniority and it provides the procedure for determination of seniority. Rule-8 reads as under:- ^^8- ml fLFkfr esa T;s”Brk tc fu;qfDr;ka] inksUufr vkSj lh/kh HkrhZ ls dh tk;%& ¼1½ tgka lsok fu;ekoyh ds vuqlkj fu;qfDr;ka inksUufr vkSj lh/kh HkrhZ nksuksa izdkj ls dh tkuh gksa] ogka bl izdkj fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa dh T;s”Brk mudh ekSfyd fu;qfDr ds vkns’k ds fnukad ls fuEufyf[kr mifu;eksa ds mica/kksa ds v/khu vo/kfjr dh tk;sxh vkSj ;fn nks ;k vf/kd O;fDr ,d lkFk fu;qDr fd;s tk;s rks ml dze esa vo/kkfjr dh tk;sxh ftlesa muds uke fu;qfDr ds vkns’k esa j[ks x;s gS%& izfrca/k ;g gS fd ;fn fu;qfDr ds vkns’k esa dksbZ ,slk fof’k”B iwoZorh fnukad fofufnZ”V gks ftlls dksbZ O;fDr ekSfyd :i ls fu;qDr fd;k tk; rks og fnukad ekSfyd fu;qfDr ds vkns’k dk fnukad ekuk tk;sxk vkSj vU; ekeyksa esa bldk rkRi;Z vkns’k tkjh fd;s tkus ds fnukad ls gksxk%& vxzsrj izfrca/k ;g gS fd lh/ks HkrhZ fd;k x;k dksbZ vH;FkhZ viuh T;s”Brk [kks ldrk gS] ;fn fdlh fjDr in dk mls izLrko fd;s tkus ij og fof/kekU; dkj.kksa ds fcuk] dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus esa foQy jgrk gS] dkj.kksa dh fof/kekU;rk ds laca/k esa fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dk fofu’p; vfUre gksxkA ¼2½ fdlh ,d p;u ds ifj.kkeLo:i%& ¼d½ lh/kh HkrhZ ls fu;qfDr O;fDr;ksa dh ijLij T;s”Brk ogh gksxh tSlh ;FkkfLFkfr vk;ksx ;k lfefr }kjk rS;kj dh x;h ;ksX;rk lwph esa fn[kk;h x;h gksA ¼[k½ inksUufr }kjk fu;qfDr O;fDr;ksa dh ijLij T;s”Brk ogh gksxh tks bl fLFkfr ds vuqlkj fd inksUufr ,dy iks”kd laoxZ ls ;k vusd iks”kd laoxksZ ls gksrh gS ;FkkfLFkfr] fu;e 6 ;k fu;e 7 esa fn;s x;s fl)karksa ds vuqlkj vo/kkfjr dh tk;A ¼3½ tgka fdlh ,d p;u ds ifj.kkeLo:i fu;qfDr;ka inksUufr vkSj lh/kh HkrhZ nksuksa izdkj ls dh tk;] ogka inksUur O;fDr;ksa dh] lh/ks HkrhZ fd;s x;s O;fDr;ksa ds laca/k esa T;s”Brk] tgka rd gks lds] nksuksa lzksrksa ds fy, fofgr dksVk ds vuqlkj pdzkuqdze esa ¼izFke LFkku inksUur O;fDr dk gksxk½ vo/kkfjr dh tk;sxhA n`”Vkr & ¼1½ tgka inksUur O;fDr;ksa vkSj lh/kh HkrhZ fd;s x;s O;fDr;ksa dks dksVk 1%1 ds vuqikr esa gks] ogka T;s”Brk fuEufyf[kr dze esa gksxh%& izFke & inksUur O;fDrA f}rh; & lh/kh HkrhZ fd;k x;k O;fDr vkSj blh izdkj vkxs HkhA ¼2½ tgka mDr dksVk 1%3 ds vuqikr esa gks] ogka T;s”Brk fuEufyf[kr dze esa gksxh%& izFke & inksUur O;fDrA f}rh; ls prqFkZ & lh/ks HkrhZ fd;s x;s O;fDrA ikapok & inksUur O;fDrA NBk ls vkBoka & lh/kh HkrhZ fd;s O;fDr vkSj blh izdkj vkxs HkhA izfrca/k ;g gS fd %& ¼1½ tgka fdlh lzksr ls fu;qfDr;ka fofgr dksVk ls vf/kd dh tk;] ogka dksVk ls vf/kd fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa dks T;s”Brk ds fy, mu vuqorhZ o”kZ ;k o”kksZ ds fy, c<+k fn;k tk;sxk ftuesa dksVk ds vuqlkj fjfDr;ka gksA ¼2½ tgka fdlh lzksr ls fu;qfDr;ka fofgr dksVk ls de gks] vkSj ,slh u Hkjh x;h fjfDr;ksa ds izfr fu;qfDr;ka vuqorhZ o”kZ ;k o”kksZ esa dh tk;] ogka bl izdkj fu;qDr O;fDr fdlh iwoZorhZ o”kZ dh T;s”Brk ugha ik;saxs fdUrq og ml o”kZ dh T;s”Brk ik;saxs ftlesa mudh fu;qfDr;ka dh tk;a fdUrq muds uke ‘kh”kZ ij j[ks tk;sxsa] ftlds ckn vU; O;fDr;ksa ds uke pdzkuqdze esa j[ks tk;sxsaA ¼3½ tgka lsok fu;ekoyh ds vuqlkj] lqlaxr lsok fu;ekoyh esa mfYyf[kr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fdlh lzksr ls fcuk Hkjh x;h fjfDr;ka vU; lzksr ls Hkjh tk; vkSj dksVk ls vf/kd fu;qfDr;ka dh tk;a] ogka og bl izdkj fu;qDr O;fDr mlh o”kZ dh T;s”Brk ik;saxs ekuks os vius dksVk dh fjfDr;ksa ds izfr fu;qDr fd;s x;s gksA** 12. Thus, in view of the above provisions, the seniority of the parties should be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on substantive basis prior to the private respondents no.3 and 4, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be placed above the private respondents no. 3 and 4 in the seniority list. On behalf of the respondents, it has been contended that it is necessary to place the parties in the cyclic order as it has been provided in Rule 20 of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Employees Services Rules, 2004. In fact, the provision for placing the direct recruits and promotees in the cyclic order is meant for maintaining the percentage of the direct recruits and promotees in the matter of appointment only. However, the seniority is to be determined strictly in accordance with the provisions of Uttarakhand Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 and there can be no deviation from this rule. As regards the percentage of the direct recruits and promotees is concerned, it can also be maintained by placing the parties enblock. But in the present case, the seniority of the parties have been determined only on the basis of cyclic order, which cannot be upheld. Learned counsel for the respondents have drawn our attention towards the following cases: i. Arvinder Singh Bains Vs. State of Punjab & others, 2006(3) Recent Services Judgments, 390 ii. H.V. Pardsani vs Union of India & others, AIR 1985 Supreme Court, 781 iii. Union of India & others Vs. N.R. Parmar and others, 2013 (136) FLR 134 iv. State of Haryana and others vs. Vijay Singh & others, 2012(135) FLR, 191 13. We have carefully gone through the abovementioned cases carefully. In Arvinder Singh's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that the rule of Rota and Quota must necessarily be reflected in the service rules. The same principle has been laid down in the case of HV Pardsani and N.R. Parmar's case. There can be no dispute that 'Rota and Quota' should be maintained. But in the present case, despite maintaining quota, the question is as to which is the manner of placing the parties in the seniority. The quota means that sufficient employees are appointed so that their quota can be maintained, but it can never be meant that seniority should also be determined according to quota. But in the present case, despite maintaining quota, the question is as to which is the manner of placing the parties in the seniority. The quota means that sufficient employees are appointed so that their quota can be maintained, but it can never be meant that seniority should also be determined according to quota. The quota and the seniority have different aspects and meaning. With maintenance of quota, the seniority can also be determined and as we have said earlier, after placing the petitioners at right place in seniority, the directly appointed persons can be placed enblock for maintenance of that quota. In other words, it can be concluded that first of all the parties should be placed in accordance with their appointment on substantive posts and thereafter, the remainder parties can be placed enblock. By exercising this method, both the purpose will be solved i.e. Seniority of the parties will be maintained as well as the requirement of quota will also be fulfilled. But this procedure can be applied when the persons have been appointed on different dates. If there are employees who have been appointed on one date, they can be placed in the cyclic order as per the rules mentioned above. 14. The impugned seniority list has been drawn under the provisions of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Abhiyantran Sewa Niyamawali, 2011. While at the time of entering into the cadre of Assistant engineers of the parties, the Rules of 2011 were not applicable. At that time, the service conditions of the parties were governed under the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Employees Services Rules, 2004 and Uttarakhand Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002. Therefore, the determination of seniority under the 2011 Rules cannot be held justified. 15. Keeping in view of the above discussion, it becomes crystal clear that impugned seniority list has not been drawn properly and in accordance with relevant rules, consequently, the impugned seniority list is liable to be set aside. ORDER 16. The claim petition is allowed. The impugned seniority list dated 04.07.2012 (Annexure A-1) is hereby set aside. The respondent no.1 is directed to redraw the seniority list within a period three months from today in accordance with relevant rules. No order as to costs.