Seniority Dispute in Recruitment Year 1997-98: Direct Recruits vs. Promotees

The judgment in question pertains to a dispute over the seniority of Assistant Consolidation Officers (ACOs) appointed in the recruitment year 1997-1998 in the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service. The case primarily involves a conflict between direct recruits and promotees within the same recruitment year, with the issue centered around the proper application of seniority rules as per the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 (the 1991 Rules) and the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992 (the 1992 Rules).

The appellants in the case, who were direct recruits, challenged the judgment of the High Court which modified the seniority list by applying the rota system to direct recruits and promotees. This system, in effect, dictated that the seniority of the officers would alternate between the promotees and direct recruits within the same recruitment year. The direct recruits, however, contended that the seniority list issued in 2005, which placed them above the promotees, was correct and should not have been altered by the High Court. The core question revolved around how the seniority list should be determined and whether the 1991 Rules or the 1992 Rules should take precedence.

Background of the Case

The writ petitioners, who were promoted to the post of ACOs, claimed that their seniority should be placed above the direct recruits appointed during the same year. According to the petitioners, the seniority should be assigned in accordance with Rule 8(3) of the 1991 Rules, which calls for a cyclic order between promotees and direct recruits. This meant that for a recruitment year, a promotee should be ranked first, followed by a direct recruit, and so on. The issue arose because the State had placed the direct recruits above the promotees in the seniority list, which the petitioners contested as erroneous.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/court-ruling-on-vice-chancellor-appointment-legal-validity-of-procedure-for-selection/

Both the direct recruits and promotees had been appointed in the recruitment year 1997-1998. While the direct recruits were appointed in August 1997, the promotees were elevated to the post of ACOs in December 1997. The writ petitioners argued that despite being appointed later, the promotees should have been placed above the direct recruits in the seniority list for that recruitment year, in line with the 1991 Rules.

The State and the direct recruits contended that the seniority should be assigned based on the year of vacancy and the order of appointment. In other words, although vacancies existed earlier, the direct recruits were appointed after the promotees and, thus, should be ranked above them in terms of seniority.

Legal Arguments

The arguments put forth by the parties in the case were centered around the interpretation of the relevant rules, particularly Rule 8 of the 1991 Rules and the application of the 1992 Rules. The direct recruits, represented by Mr. S.R. Singh, argued that since they had been appointed in August 1997, a few months before the promotees were appointed in December 1997, they should be given seniority over the promotees. Mr. Singh emphasized that the seniority list prepared in 2005, which placed the direct recruits above the promotees, was correct and consistent with the 1991 Rules, which stated that seniority should be based on the date of appointment.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-upholds-uttarakhands-policy-on-b-ed-college-recognition/

On the other hand, the counsel for the promotees, Mr. Pradeep Kant, argued that since both groups were appointed in the same recruitment year, the seniority should be determined in accordance with the cyclic order prescribed under Rule 8(3) of the 1991 Rules. He pointed out that the promotees had a legitimate claim to be placed above the direct recruits as per the principle laid out in the 1991 Rules. The cyclic order, which alternates between promotees and direct recruits, ensured that no group would be unfairly placed in a lower seniority position.

The Court’s Reasoning

The Court, after considering the submissions from both sides, referred to Rule 8 of the 1991 Rules and Rule 18 of the 1992 Rules, which govern seniority and recruitment for the position of ACO. Rule 8 of the 1991 Rules clearly states that where both promotion and direct recruitment occur in the same selection year, seniority should be assigned in a cyclic order, with the promotees placed first. This rule was designed to ensure fairness between promotees and direct recruits, preventing one group from being unjustly prioritized over the other.

The Court also examined the 1992 Rules, which supersede the 1991 Rules and define the recruitment year as running from July to June. According to these rules, the combined seniority list for direct recruits and promotees should be created with due regard to the prescribed quotas, ensuring that appointments are made in the correct order. The 1992 Rules also emphasize that a combined seniority list should be prepared when both promotion and direct recruitment are involved in the same selection year.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/mahatma-gandhi-university-vs-rincymol-mathew-supreme-court-upholds-career-advancement-benefits/

The Court found that the seniority list of 2005, which placed the direct recruits above the promotees, was in violation of the 1992 Rules. The rules specifically require that promotees be placed first in the cyclic order when both groups are recruited in the same year. The Court, therefore, agreed with the findings of the High Court that the seniority list needed to be amended to reflect the correct order, with promotees ranked above direct recruits in accordance with the 1991 and 1992 Rules.

Judgment

The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the direct recruits, agreeing with the High Court’s decision to apply the rota system. The Court noted that both the direct recruits and the promotees had entered the ACO cadre during the same recruitment year, and as such, the seniority list should be prepared in accordance with the cyclic order as prescribed by the relevant rules. The Court rejected the direct recruits’ claim for retrospective seniority, affirming that seniority cannot be granted on a retrospective basis unless explicitly provided by the service rules.

The judgment concluded by upholding the High Court’s direction to revise the seniority list and dismissed the appeals, reinforcing the application of the cyclic order for the determination of seniority in the case of direct recruits and promotees appointed in the same recruitment year.

Conclusion

This case serves as an important reminder of the need for clarity in the application of seniority rules, particularly when both direct recruits and promotees are appointed in the same year. It highlights the importance of following the statutory rules in determining seniority and ensuring fairness between different groups of employees. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that seniority should not be determined retrospectively and should always be in accordance with the rules governing appointments.

Petitioner Name: Amit Singh.
Respondent Name: Ravindra Nath Pandey & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
Place Of Incident: New Delhi.
Judgment Date: 11-11-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: amit-singh-vs-ravindra-nath-pandey-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-11-11-2022.pdf