Summary
The Court directed recasting of Junior Engineers’ seniority in Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam by merit while assigning seniority according to the applicable reservation roster. Fortuitously earlier appointment of lower-ranked candidates could not defeat the regulations requiring appointments in selection-list order. However, the existing merit-based list also failed to implement the mandatory roster. General government-servant seniority rules did not automatically govern the statutory Nigam’s employees.
Issues
- Whether different appointment dates within one selection displaced merit-based seniority.
- Whether the reservation roster or government-servant seniority rules governed preparation of the list.
Provisions considered
- Regulations 16(2), 17, 20 and 23(1), Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Subordinate Engineering Service Regulations, 1978The substantive-appointment provision had to be read with the mandatory requirement to appoint in selection-list order; fortuitous dates could not defeat merit. (¶¶ 9, 15, 17)
- Regulation 6, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Subordinate Engineering Service Regulations, 1978The applicable government reservation order and its roster had to be implemented when recasting seniority. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 18, 20, 21)
Held
- Regulation 23 could not be read alone. Regulation 20 required appointments in selection-list order; earlier appointment of lower-ranked candidates contrary to the regulations could not defeat the higher-ranked candidates’ rights, even without an earlier challenge to those appointments. (¶ 17)
- Regulation 6 and the State’s approval of recruitment made the 31 August 2001 roster mandatory. The existing seniority list had not implemented it and could not stand. (¶¶ 18, 20)
- The 2002 government-servant seniority rules did not automatically apply to the statutory Nigam. Its employees were not government servants governed by Article 309 rules, and adoption for the relevant recruitment had not occurred. (¶ 19)
- Seniority had to be recast in merit order with assignment according to the roster points prescribed in the applicable circular. (¶ 21)
Result
Appeals disposed of. Seniority list of 28 November 2014 and High Court order of 11 July 2018 set aside. Respondent No. 5 directed to recast seniority in merit order by assigning seniority according to the roster points in the circular dated 31 August 2001.