Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1176 (ALL)

Meena Rani v. State Of U. P.

2025-09-24

AJIT KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Pal, learned A.C.S.C. 2. Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, the original service book of the petitioner has been placed before the Court. 3. Upon perusal of it, I have found that the petitioner's date of birth recorded in the service record is 01.01.1987 and the joining date of the petitioner is recorded as 04.02.2008. However, in the seniority list that was prepared in the year 2018, which has also been annexed along with the instructions, the date of birth of the petitioner is wrongly recorded as 01.01.1967 and joining as 02.04.2008. Thus both the date of birth and year and the date of joining have wrongly been recorded. 4. It has been pleaded in the writ petition in paragraph no.19 that the petitioner has not been served with any notice, nor any objection was invited before the preparation of the final seniority list and it was after the promotion was accorded to the two junior candidates namely Smt. Alka Pal and Smt. Poonam Singh in the year 2023 on the post of Assistant Development Officer that the petitioner came to have knowledge of the seniority list. This has been so pleaded in the paragraph no.20 of the writ petition. 5. It is further pleaded that immediately upon coming to know this serious discrepancy occurring in the preparation of the seniority list as well as the promotion given as a consequence thereof, petitioner approached the authority by moving an appropriate application on 20.10.2024 and the respondent no.3 intimated it to the respondent no.2 vide letter dated 13.11.2024 that because of the wrong entry that petitioner was made to suffer. The Commissioner, Village Development (Gram Vikas), Lucknow, however, in response to the letter written by the District Development Officer, Jaunpur dated 13.11.2004 did not take any action and upon direction being issued by this Court on 24.03.2025 in the first round of litigation by the petitioner vide Writ-A No.3610 of 2025, that impugned order has been passed on 12.02.2025 denying the claim of the petitioner to correct the seniority, placing reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 31.05.2017 in the matter of K.R. Mudgal and Ors. Vs. R.P. Singh & Ors. Vs. R.P. Singh & Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 531 in which it has been held that if the seniority list has remained unchallenged for three to four years, it would not be disturbed. 6. The authority also referred to another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.S. Vankani Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 301 to the effect that once seniority is settled, it becomes decisive in upward mould in one's chosen does not work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts the morale to do the quality work. 7. Learned Standing Counsel though sought to defend the order for reason assigned therein, but could not explain from the instructions as to who committed this error while preparing the seniority list which certainly seriously prejudiced the rights and interest of the petitioner in service. 8. Recently, in a judgment in the matter of Ajay Kumar Shukla and others Vs. Arvind Rai and others with connected matters, (2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 579 , the Apex Court has taken a view that there is a delay in approaching the Court by the affected party in extending the seniority list, the Court is satisfied for extension offer for delayed approach, can entertain the matter of dispute as to the seniority. Vide paragraph nos. 24, 25, 26 & 27 of the said judgment, the court has held thus: " 24. We may now discuss the law on the point regarding delay in approaching the court and in particular challenge to a seniority list. The learned Single Judge had placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa (supra). Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J., after considering the question of entertaining the petition despite long standing seniority filed at a belated stage discussed more than a dozen cases on the point including Constitution Bench judgments and ultimately in paragraph 30 observed that a seniority list which remains in existence for more than three to four years unchallenged should not be disturbed. It is also recorded in paragraph 30 that in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond period of three to four years he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum by furnishing satisfactory explanation. Paragraph 30 is reproduced below: - "30. It is also recorded in paragraph 30 that in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond period of three to four years he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum by furnishing satisfactory explanation. Paragraph 30 is reproduced below: - "30. Thus in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R. Mudgal, this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation." 25. On the other hand, the Division Bench while shutting out the appellants on the ground of delay relied upon following judgments of this Court: " (i) Dayaram Asanand Gursahani vs. State of Maharashtra (ii) B.S. Bajwa and another vs. State of Punjab (iii) Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza vs. Union of India (iv) R.S. Makashi and others vs. I.M. Menon 26. In the case of Dayaram A. Gursahani, there was a delay of 9 years. In the case of B.S. Bajwa, there was a delay of more than a decade. In Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza, the delay was of 15 years and in R.S. Makashi there was a delay of 8 years. In all these cases, this court has recorded that the delay has not been explained. Shiba Shankar Mohapatra is a judgment of 2010, which has laid down that, three to four years would be a reasonable period to challenge a seniority list and also that any challenge beyond the aforesaid period would require satisfactory explanation. 27. In view of the above legal proposition, we now examine the facts of the present case, firstly, as to whether there was delay of more than three to four years and secondly, if there was delay of more than three to four years, whether the same has been satisfactorily explained." 9. 27. In view of the above legal proposition, we now examine the facts of the present case, firstly, as to whether there was delay of more than three to four years and secondly, if there was delay of more than three to four years, whether the same has been satisfactorily explained." 9. Applying above principles of law to the facts of the case, I find that the seniority list finally came to be published in the year 2018, but neither any objection was notified from any of the members of the seniority list, nor the final seniority list was communicated to the petitioner. 10. In such circumstances, therefore, Court is satisfied with the contention that in the absence of knowledge of the seniority list, it could not be challenged and it was only when the promotions were granted to the persons junior to him that petitioner, upon inquiry being made, could lay his hand upon the seniority list. 11. Besides the above, we find that there are such manifest errors in the seniority list which from the original records of the service book of the petitioner are quite reflected and in the circumstances and illegality of the nature mentioning wrong date of birth and joining cannot be permitted to be perpetuated. 12. From perusal of the service book of the petitioner the Court finds it to be an admitted position to the respondents that the petitioner's date of birth originally came to be recorded at the time of his entering service as 01.01.1987 and also his initial date of joining as 04.02.2008. Any seniority list even provisionally is to be prepared by recording correct service details given in the service book and if either due to inadvertence or for deliberate negligence by those who were entrusted with the task to prepare the seniority list, wrongly mentioned the date of birth and the date of joining of employee in service despite the correct dates recorded in the duly verified service book, such seniority list does not ipso facto become justified in absence of objection being filed by a candidate. There may be a human error on the principle of "to err is human" but such error cannot be permitted to be perpetuated for having continued to remain ignored for want of knowledge of the affected for a long period of time. 13. There may be a human error on the principle of "to err is human" but such error cannot be permitted to be perpetuated for having continued to remain ignored for want of knowledge of the affected for a long period of time. 13. This was a case in which the authorities ought to have themselves intervened and instead of rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay ought to have rectified the error in the seniority list as it would not have affected adversely any of the candidates of the seniority list who were admittedly junior to the petitioner but were wrongly placed above to petitioner. Not only the latest judgment of the Apex Court supports the claim of the petitioner, but even the principles that have been discussed in the judgments relied upon by the authority under the order impugned are general principles of law and hence would not get attracted in special facts and circumstances of the present case. Nothing has come in the order that seniority list with inherent defect qua service record of the petitioner was ever supplied to him or his signatures were ever taken upon the same. Even counter affidavit is silent on this aspect. 14. It is a well settled legal principle that the judgments by the Courts are not elucid theorem to be applied generally [ Sreenivasa General Traders and Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others. , (1983) 4 SCC 353 ] . An authority is a precedent for the case it decides and therefore, while attracting general principles, special facts and circumstances of each case is needed to be examined. The authority manifestly erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Since the instructions cannot in any manner override the original records namely the service book of the petitioner, which is before the Court, I consider it to be a fit case to be decided on the basis of original records and the statements made in the instructions. 15. In the circumstances, the order impugned dated 12.06.2025 for what the law has been discussed above and the correct entries contained in original record referred to like service books, deserves to be set aside. 16. Writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed and the order dated 12.06.2025, is hereby quashed. 17. 15. In the circumstances, the order impugned dated 12.06.2025 for what the law has been discussed above and the correct entries contained in original record referred to like service books, deserves to be set aside. 16. Writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed and the order dated 12.06.2025, is hereby quashed. 17. The authority, namely respondent concerned is directed to rectify the seniority list by placing the petitioner just below the candidates who is having prior date of joining as Village Development Officer and consequently accord promotion to the petitioner as Assistant Development Officer with effect from date his juniors have been given promotion without all consequential benefits. 18. Since the petitioner has been wholly legally denied promotion for no fault on his part, but for the negligence of the officials involved in the preparation of the seniority list ignoring the correct two dates recorded in the service book, hence in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court [ Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Vs. C. Muddaiah (2007) 7 SCC 689] , the petitioner is held entitled to arrears of salary for the promotional post which he would have enjoyed otherwise if promoted at the initial stage. The appropriate order shall be passed by the authorities namely respondent no.2 within a period of one month from the date of the production of certified copy of this order. 19. The original service book is returned to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.