Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between promotees and direct recruits in the Public Works Department (P.W.D.) of Uttar Pradesh regarding seniority among Assistant Engineers. The appellants, Keshav Deo and another, were appointed as Overseers in 1973 and later promoted to Assistant Engineers on an ad hoc basis in 1979. They were confirmed as Assistant Engineers after being selected by the Public Service Commission in 1984. The controversy intensified when a seniority list was published in 1995, placing the appellants above certain direct recruits. Respondents 3 and 4 challenged this list in the High Court, which quashed it, stating that the seniority of promotees could not be counted from their ad hoc appointments. The appellants contended that their continuous officiation should be recognized for seniority, and they raised several legal questions regarding their entitlement to seniority and the High Court's decision to revisit earlier judgments. The Supreme Court decided to address the first question regarding seniority directly, emphasizing that the applicable service rules allowed for counting seniority from the date of continuous officiation. The court found that the seniority list was in accordance with the rules and should not have been disturbed by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondents, allowing the appellants' claim for seniority. The court also criticized the State Government's conduct in the matter, highlighting the need for resolution to prevent ongoing litigation.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Seniority Determination - Seniority of promotees to be counted from the date of continuous officiation - U.P. Services of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch), Class-II Rules, 1936, Rule 23 - The court held that the seniority list prepared in accordance with the rules cannot be disturbed, and the appellants' seniority should be counted from their date of officiation, not from the date of approval by the Commission. (Paras 26-26).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants are entitled to seniority on the post of Assistant Engineers from the date they have been officiating or from the date they were selected and approved by the Commission.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the seniority list prepared in accordance with the rules was valid and should not have been disturbed by the High Court. The court dismissed the writ petition filed by respondents 3 and 4 and set aside the High Court's judgment.
Law Points
- seniority
- promotion
- ad hoc service
- Public Service Commission
- continuous officiation
