Summary
Direct recruits were appointed Assistant Consolidation Officers in Uttar Pradesh on 18.08.1997, and promotees on 16.12.1997. Both fell within the same recruitment year, 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998. A 2005 seniority list placed all the direct recruits above the promotees. The Allahabad High Court quashed it and directed a rota. The Supreme Court dismissed the direct recruits' appeals. The 1992 Consolidation Service Rules supersede earlier rules. Under them, where both sources are appointed in one recruitment year, a combined select list in cyclic order, starting with a promotee, is mandatory. The earlier date of appointment does not give the direct recruits priority.
Issues
- Whether inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees appointed as Assistant Consolidation Officers in the same recruitment year is governed by the date of substantive appointment under Rule 8(1) of the 1991 Seniority Rules or by the cyclic combined list under Rules 18 and 19 of the 1992 Rules.
Provisions considered
- Rules 3(m), 5, 18 and 19, Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992With a 67:33 quota and a recruitment year from 1 July, appointments from both sources in one year must await selections from both and be arranged in a combined cyclic list beginning with a promotee. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24)
- Rules 3 and 8, U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991The overriding clause in Rule 3 applies to earlier service rules only; the 1992 Rules, made later in supersession of all existing rules, govern. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 19)
- Proviso to Article 309, Constitution of IndiaSource of the 1992 Rules, which supersede all existing rules and orders on the subject. (¶ 19)
Held
- The 1992 Rules, framed under the proviso to Article 309 in supersession of all existing rules and orders, govern inter se seniority; the overriding clause in Rule 3 of the 1991 Rules operates only against earlier service rules, so the argument based on date of substantive appointment under Rule 8(1) fails. (¶¶ 19, 23)
- As both direct recruits and promotees were appointed in the recruitment year 1997-98, Rule 19(2) barred regular appointments without selections from both sources and a combined list under Rule 18, and Rule 19(3) required names in cyclic order with a promotee first; the combined list of 18.09.2003 complied, and the list of 29.07.2005 giving direct recruits higher seniority contravened Rules 18 and 19. (¶¶ 24, 25, 27)
- Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Association is distinguishable: there promotees of 1991 claimed seniority over direct recruits substantively appointed in 1990, and the 1992 Rules were not in issue; the principles in Pawan Pratap Singh that seniority follows the service rules are applied. (¶¶ 20, 21, 26)
Result
Civil Appeal Nos. 8324-8327 of 2022 against the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) judgment dated 04.09.2014 in Special Appeal No. 625 of 2008 and connected appeals dismissed; no costs.