Summary
The Court held that the Assistant Engineers’ seniority against direct recruits appointed before their regularisation ran from 14 December 1989, rather than their 1985 ad hoc appointments. Rule 7 tied seniority to appointment after selection under the Regularisation Rules, and the original appointment terms expressly excluded a claim to seniority. Narendra Kumar Tripathi was held per incuriam to the relevant extent. The revised 2016 list was quashed and the final 2001 list restored, with consequential effects.
Issues
- Whether pre-regularisation ad hoc service counted for seniority against earlier direct recruits.
- Whether Narendra Kumar Tripathi controlled despite earlier binding decisions and the complete governing rules.
Provisions considered
- Rules 4 to 7, as extended in 1989, Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979Substantive appointment followed selection and regularisation under these Rules; Rule 7 fixed seniority from that appointment and protected earlier regular appointees. (¶¶ 5, 7, 8, 9, 10)
- Rules 3(g), 3(i) and 21, Uttar Pradesh Rural Engineering (Group B) Service Rules, 1993The definitions excluded ad hoc appointment from substantive appointment, and seniority was linked to the 1991 Seniority Rules. (¶¶ 7.1, 8)
Held
- The 1985 appointments were expressly ad hoc, terminable and without a future seniority claim based on their date. Regularisation in 1989 required a separately constituted selection process. This was substantive appointment, rather than mere confirmation of an earlier appointment made under the regular rules. (¶¶ 7, 9, 10)
- Rule 7 granted seniority only from appointment after selection under the Regularisation Rules and placed such appointees below persons previously appointed through the relevant regular procedure. The 1993 service definitions and the seniority framework were consistent with that result. (¶¶ 7, 7.1, 8)
- Narendra Kumar Tripathi had not considered the earlier binding interpretations in Santosh Kumar and Archana Shukla or the complete wording of Rule 7. To that extent it was per incuriam and could not sustain the revised seniority. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- The precedents concerning appointment according to rules, later confirmation or qualified promotees appointed with the requisite consultation involved materially different circumstances. Appointment against a substantive vacancy was also distinct from the substantive appointment required by the rules here. (¶¶ 5.1, 5.2, 9, 10)
- Pre-14 December 1989 ad hoc service did not count against direct recruits appointed before that date. The challenged High Court judgments and revised 2016 seniority list were set aside; the final 2001 list was restored with necessary consequences. (¶¶ 8, 10, 11)
Result
All appeals allowed without costs; impugned High Court judgments and revised seniority list quashed, and the 14 December 2001 seniority list restored with consequential effects.