Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1158 (ALL)

RAVI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-05-09

IFAQAT ALI KHAN, SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.11.2013 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) rejecting petitioner’s Claim Petition No. 362 of 2010 whereby he (alongwith others) challenged seniority of the persons impleaded as respondent 6 to 11 before Tribunal on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). 3. Brief facts, as evident from record, are that U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Commission”) made an advertisement dated 7.10.1995 and declared a select list of 469 candidates. Besides, waiting list was also prepared by Commission. Appointment letters were issued to all 469 candidates but 121 of them did not join. Therefore, Registrar, Cooperative Society sent letter dated 7.4.1998 requesting Commission to send 121 names from waiting list (50 candidates in general category, 17 in Other Backward Classes and 45 Scheduled Castes). Commission by letter dated 2.5.1998 recommended names of 114 candidates from waiting list. However, appointment letters were not issued to wait list candidates. Therefore some candidates filed Writ Petitions in this Court which were decided on 18.2.2000. Thereafter their appointments were made. 4. Petitioner, Ravi Kumar Srivastava, was appointed on 19.4.2000. Other claimants before Tribunal, i.e. Ramchandra Tiwari, Amit Kumar and Nilesh Kumar Rai were appointed on 20.4.2000, 3.5.2000 and 30.5.2000 respectively. A seniority list was published on 3.12.2009 determining seniority of petitioner from the date of his appointment. 5. It appears that some persons, namely, Rajendra Kumar and others, who were in the category of Scheduled Castes preferred Writ Petition No. 3811 of 2009 disputing determination of seniority of some candidates. The writ petition was decided vide judgment dated 7.7.2009 and this Court directed State of U.P. to re-determine seniority after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to petitioners in that writ petition. 6. Another final seniority list was published on 3.12.2009 in which seniority of candidates, who were appointed after being recommended from wait list, was determined from the date of their appointment and not on the basis of merit list as also give them benefit of period when they were not in service at all. 6. Another final seniority list was published on 3.12.2009 in which seniority of candidates, who were appointed after being recommended from wait list, was determined from the date of their appointment and not on the basis of merit list as also give them benefit of period when they were not in service at all. Referring to Rule 8(2)(a) of “U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991” (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1991”) petitioner and three others filed Claim Petition before Tribunal which has been dismissed vide judgment, impugned in this writ petition. 7. Tribunal has held that petitioners were not in the select list and candidates recommended in the select list were given appointment on 16.5.1997 and 28.5.1997. Their inter se seniority was determined on the basis of merit list prepared by Commission as provided in Rule 8(2)(a). So far as wait list candidates are concerned, they were not declared selected and their names were recommended subsequently, hence they were appointed in 2000. They cannot be allowed seniority placing them at par with the candidates who were appointed in 1997 inasmuch as Rule 8(2)(a) is not applicable to cover such contingency. 8. Before us, counsel for petitioner has again argued same aspect that seniority of petitioner ought to have been determined as per merit list by taking recourse to Rule 8(2)(a) of Rules, 1991. 9. However, we find no force in the submission. Rule 8 of Rules, 1991 talks of determination of seniority from the date of order of substantive appointment. If two or more persons are appointed together, their seniority has to be determined in the order in which their names are arranged in appointment order. Rules 2(a) of Rule 8 further clarifies that inter se seniority of persons appointed on the result of any selection through direct recruitment shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list prepared by Commission or by the Committee, as the case may be. We also find from Rule 8(3) Proviso(ii), if appointment from one selection is made in subsequent year, the persons so appointed shall not get seniority from any earlier date but shall get seniority of the year in which their appointments are made. We also find from Rule 8(3) Proviso(ii), if appointment from one selection is made in subsequent year, the persons so appointed shall not get seniority from any earlier date but shall get seniority of the year in which their appointments are made. It reads as under: “(ii) where appointments from any source fall short of the prescribed quota and appointment against such unfilled vacancies are made in subsequent year or years, the persons so appointed shall not get seniority of any earlier year but shall get the seniority of the year in which their appointments, are made, so however, that their names shall be placed at the top followed by the names, in the cyclic order of the other appointees;” 10. In the present case, merit list prepared by Commission exhausted when appointment letters were issued by Government in 1997. Since some candidates in the merit list, to whom appointment letters were issued did not join, vacancies remained unfilled, therefore, appointing authority requested Commission to send some more names from wait list so as to fill in the vacancies in the quota of direct recruitment. Subsequent recommendees were appointed in 2000. Reading Rule-8 of Rules, 1991 in its entirety and also in view of discussion made above, we have no manner of doubt that subsequent appointees cannot claim seniority for earlier period when they were not in service taking recourse to Rule 8(2)(a) of Rules, 1991 in isolation and to the exclusion of Rule 8(3). In fact, it is Rule 8(3) which is attracted in the case in hand. 11. However, if candidates of wait list would have been appointed at the same time, their inter se seniority may have followed order of merit prepared by Commission but this will not apply vis-a-vis candidates who were appointed subsequently. We, therefore, find no error in the judgment of Tribunal warranting interference. 12. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on Supreme Court’s judgment in State of J&K and others v. Sat Pal (Civil Appeal No. 938-939 of 2013) which deals with a different set of Rules and we do not find that issue similar to Rule 8 of Rules, 1991, as up for consideration before us, was involved in that matter. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment will not help petitioner in any manner. 13. In view of discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any merits in the writ petition. Dismissed.