Summary
Direct appointees challenged promotees’ higher seniority as Assistant Engineers because UPPSC consultation had been omitted. The Supreme Court held consultation necessary for these posts but treated the omission as curable irregularity. It directed consultation within two months, preserving each promotee’s seniority position if the Commission’s opinion was favourable.
Issues
- Whether omitted UPPSC consultation invalidated the promotees’ appointments and required placement below the direct appointees.
- How the irregularity should affect the disputed seniority list.
Provisions considered
- Article 320(3), read with its proviso, Constitution of IndiaThe Court distinguished the directory constitutional consultation principle from wholesale exclusion of the Commission and applied the governing service scheme requiring consultation for these posts. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 20, 21)
- Rule 21, as amended, U.P. Development Authorities Centralised Services Rules, 1985The enumerated exemptions did not include Assistant Engineers, so they could not justify omission of consultation. (¶¶ 5, 9, 21)
- Rules 21-A(8) and 28(4), U.P. Development Authorities Centralised Services Rules, 1985Rule 21-A(8) concerned seniority among promotees. For the competing groups, the Court applied the relevant regularisation and continuous-officiation dates, subject to curing the consultation defect. (¶¶ 10, 15, 16, 23, 24, 26)
Held
- Neither the blanket regulation later struck down nor the post-specific amendment exempted these Assistant Engineer promotions from consultation. Consultation was necessary, but its omission was an irregularity capable of cure through subsequent consultation. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- The direct appointees’ own initial appointments were ad hoc; their relevant appointment date for inter se seniority was their later regularisation on 20 November 2001. The promotees’ earlier continuous-officiation dates were relevant under Rule 28(4), while Rule 21-A(8) did not resolve this cross-source dispute. (¶¶ 18, 19, 23, 24, 25)
- The State must move the UPPSC for consultation within two months. Promotees would retain their positions where the opinion was favourable; a candidate receiving adverse advice would not retain that seniority position. A favourable consultation was to bring finality to the dispute. (¶ 26)
Result
Appeals disposed of with directions for UPPSC consultation within two months and consequential treatment of the seniority list according to the Commission’s opinion. Parties to bear their own costs.