Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a batch of civil appeals arising from a seniority dispute between direct recruit and promotee Deputy Collectors in the State of Uttarakhand. The promotees, initially appointed on an ad hoc basis in 2004, sought to count their entire continuous service from the date of ad hoc appointment for seniority, relying on the proviso to Rule 24(4) of the Uttaranchal Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005. The direct recruits, appointed in 2005, were shown as seniors in the final seniority list dated 09.08.2010. The Uttarakhand High Court allowed the promotees' writ petitions, striking down the seniority list and directing that the promotees be treated as regularly appointed from 2004. The direct recruits and the State appealed. During the proceedings, the Supreme Court directed the State to determine year-wise vacancies, leading to the Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2015, which was challenged by the promotees. The High Court upheld the memorandum. The Supreme Court held that the promotees' ad hoc appointments were not made in accordance with the rules and thus they could not claim seniority from the ad hoc date. The Court also found that the Office Memorandum incorrectly included officers who were allotted to Uttarakhand but continued to work in Uttar Pradesh, thereby occupying the promotee quota. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgments and remanded the matter to the State Government to prepare a fresh seniority list after excluding such officers from the promotee quota and determining the correct year-wise vacancies.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Ad hoc Appointment - Promotee Deputy Collectors claimed seniority from date of ad hoc appointment in 2004 under proviso to Rule 24(4) of Uttaranchal Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005 - Direct recruits appointed in 2005 challenged - High Court allowed promotees' writ petitions - Supreme Court set aside High Court judgment, holding that ad hoc appointments were not in accordance with rules and promotees cannot claim seniority from ad hoc date - Matter remanded for fresh seniority list (Paras 1-10).
B) Service Law - Quota Allocation - Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 - Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2015 determined year-wise vacancies for direct recruits and promotees - High Court upheld it - Supreme Court found that officers allotted to Uttarakhand but continuing in Uttar Pradesh cannot be deemed to have occupied posts in Uttarakhand for seniority purposes - Directed State to re-determine vacancies excluding such officers (Paras 4-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether promotee Deputy Collectors are entitled to count their ad hoc service from 2004 for seniority over direct recruits appointed in 2005, and whether the Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2015 correctly determined year-wise vacancies.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeals of direct recruits and State, set aside the High Court judgments dated 07.09.2011, 30.11.2011, and 22.05.2019, and remanded the matter to the State Government to prepare a fresh seniority list after excluding from the promotee quota those officers who were allotted to Uttarakhand but never worked there, and after determining correct year-wise vacancies.
Law Points
- Seniority
- Ad hoc appointment
- Direct recruit vs promotee
- Continuous officiating service
- Quota allocation
- Reorganization Act
Case Details
2020 LawText (SC) (2) 106
Civil Appeal No. 1606 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 2779 of 2012) and connected appeals
Vinod Giri Goswami & Ors.
The State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals challenging High Court judgments in seniority dispute between direct recruit and promotee Deputy Collectors.
Remedy Sought
Direct recruits and State sought to set aside High Court judgment that directed counting of ad hoc service for seniority; promotees sought to uphold High Court judgment and challenge Office Memorandum.
Filing Reason
Dispute over inter se seniority between direct recruits (appointed 2005) and promotees (ad hoc appointed 2004, regularized 2007).
Previous Decisions
High Court allowed writ petitions of promotees on 07.09.2011 and 30.11.2011, directing seniority from ad hoc appointment date; High Court upheld Office Memorandum on 22.05.2019.
Issues
Whether promotee Deputy Collectors are entitled to count their ad hoc service from 2004 for seniority over direct recruits appointed in 2005.
Whether the Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2015 correctly determined year-wise vacancies for direct recruits and promotees.
Submissions/Arguments
Promotees argued that their ad hoc appointments were after selection and they continuously served; they relied on proviso to Rule 24(4) of 2005 Rules and Direct Recruit case.
Direct recruits argued that ad hoc appointments were contrary to rules and promotees cannot claim seniority from ad hoc date; they relied on 2002 Seniority Rules.
State argued that allocation of officers under Reorganization Act was completed only in 2015 and officers allotted to Uttarakhand but working in Uttar Pradesh should be counted in promotee quota.
Ratio Decidendi
Promotee Deputy Collectors cannot claim seniority from the date of their ad hoc appointment as such appointments were not made in accordance with the rules. Officers allotted to Uttarakhand under the Reorganization Act but who continued to work in Uttar Pradesh cannot be deemed to have occupied posts in Uttarakhand for seniority purposes.
Judgment Excerpts
The above Appeals relate to the inter se seniority dispute between the direct recruits and the promotee Deputy Collectors in the State of Uttarakhand.
The High Court was of the opinion that an ad hoc appointee shall be entitled to count the entire service for seniority from the date of ad hoc appointment to the date of regularisation if he was in continuous service, without any interruption, till the date of his regularisation.
It was contended on behalf of the promotees that the judgment of the High Court dated 07.09.2011 directing the benefit of the ad hoc service to be given to the promotees does not call for interference.
On the other hand, the direct recruits submitted that the promotee Deputy Collectors are not entitled to claim benefit of their ad hoc service as their initial appointments in 2004 were contrary to the Rules.
On behalf of the State of Uttarakhand, it was contended that no final order with respect to allocation of Deputy Collectors could be passed in view of the interim orders passed by the Uttarakhand High Court and this Court.
Procedural History
Writ Petitions filed by promotees in 2010 allowed by High Court on 07.09.2011 and 30.11.2011. Direct recruits and State filed SLPs in 2012. Supreme Court on 11.03.2015 directed State to determine year-wise vacancies. State issued Office Memorandum on 21.10.2015 and prepared seniority list on 11.01.2017. Promotees challenged Office Memorandum in Writ Petition No.299 of 2018, which was dismissed by High Court on 22.05.2019. Appeals against that judgment also filed. All appeals heard together.
Acts & Sections
- Uttaranchal Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005: Rule 24(4)
- Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000: Section 73(2)
- Uttaranchal Government Servant Seniority Rules, 2002:
- U.P. Civil Servant (Executive Branch) Rules, 1982: Rule 20(2)
