Case Note & Summary
The case involved a service dispute between direct recruits and ad hoc promotees in the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service, governed by the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966. The direct recruits, who were selected by the Public Service Commission, alleged that the State Government repeatedly abused its power to favour ad hoc appointees, who were reportedly relatives and favourites of ministers, MLAs, and secretaries. Despite the Rules requiring posts of Sahayak Nagar Adhikaris to be filled equally by promotion and direct recruitment, the Government made ad hoc appointments for ten years and later regularised them in a manner that prejudiced the seniority and promotion rights of direct recruits. The appellants, who were direct recruits, challenged the Government's order dated 13.10.93 granting selection grade to ad hoc appointees whose services were regularised only on 17.5.85, even though the appellants were seniors. The High Court disposed of their writ petition by holding that the lis did not survive because a subsequent seniority list published during pendency showed the appellants as seniors, but it failed to address the legality of the selection grade order. The Supreme Court found this approach erroneous, as the appellants' specific grievance about denial of selection grade remained. The Court analysed the statutory provisions: Rule 9 provided that a person appointed under Rule 21A shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of appointment after selection and shall be placed below direct recruits appointed earlier. Rule 21A provided for regularisation of ad hoc employees by treating them as persons appointed in the service on the date of regularisation. Therefore, the Government could not treat ad hoc appointees regularised on 17.5.85 as senior from an earlier date. The Court also found that a subsequent Government order issued under Rule 40(2) on March 23, 1993, which purported to make ad hoc employees permanent two years after their joining, was contrary to the statutory rules and appeared to have been passed to oblige the respondents. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Rule 40(2) order, and directed the Government not to treat any ad hoc Sahayak Nagar Adhikari regularised only on 17.5.85 as senior to direct recruits appointed before that date. The Government was directed to consider the seniority of the appellants and respondents in accordance with the law and to consider the case of the appellants for selection grade as per the Government order dated July 29, 1986, granting the benefit if eligible, within two months. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Violation of Statutory Seniority Rules - U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966, Rules 9 and 21A - The Government could not treat ad hoc appointees whose services were regularised on 17.5.85 as persons regularly appointed from an earlier date or count seniority from earlier date for promotion or selection grade. Rule 9 provided that a person appointed under Rule 21A shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of appointment after selection and shall be placed below employees appointed by direct recruitment prior to such appointment. Held that the Government acted contrary to statutory rules and the appeal was allowed. B) Service Law - Regularisation - Retrospective Permanency Order Invalid - U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966, Rule 40(2) - The Government's letter dated March 23, 1993 directing that ad hoc employees working continuously shall be made permanent two years after the date of joining was inconsistent with the statutory rules and appeared to have been passed to oblige respondents. The Supreme Court quashed and set aside this order under Rule 40(2). C) High Court Error - Disposal of Writ Petition - Failure to Consider Legality of Impugned Order - U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966, Rules 9 and 21A - The High Court erred by holding that the lis did not survive based on a subsequent seniority list without examining the legality of the order granting selection grade to juniors; the Supreme Court held this approach improper and allowed the appeal. D) Service Law - Selection Grade - Entitlement of Senior Direct Recruits - U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966, Government Order dated 29.7.86 - Direct recruits who were seniors were denied selection grade while their juniors, ad hoc appointees regularised on 17.5.85, were granted the benefit. The Supreme Court directed the Government to consider the seniority of appellants and respondents in accordance with the rules and to consider the case of the appellants for selection grade per the Government order dated July 29, 1986, granting benefit if eligible within two months. Held that appeal allowed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in disposing of the writ petition without examining the legality of the government order dated 13.10.93 granting selection grade to ad hoc appointees regularised on 17.5.85; whether the Government could treat such ad hoc appointees as senior to direct recruits and grant them selection grade; whether the Government's order under Rule 40(2) retrospectively regularising ad hoc employees was valid.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Government directed not to treat any ad hoc Sahayak Nagar Adhikari regularised only on 17.5.85 as senior to direct recruits appointed before that date. Order under Rule 40(2) quashed and set aside. Government directed to consider seniority of appellants and respondents accordingly and consider case of appellants for selection grade per G.O. dated 29.7.86, grant if eligible, complete exercise within two months. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Statutory seniority rules prevail over executive orders
- ad hoc appointees cannot claim seniority from date before regularisation
- Rule 9 of U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules
- 1966 mandates seniority from date of regular appointment and below earlier direct recruits
- Rule 21A provides regularisation only from date of regularisation
- Government cannot use Rule 40(2) to confer retrospective permanency to favour ad hoc appointees
- High Court must examine legality of impugned orders and cannot dismiss petition as infructuous merely on seniority list.
