Seniority Dispute Between Direct Recruits and Promotees in Uttarakhand: Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Vinod Giri Goswami & Ors. vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors.. This case revolved around a long-standing dispute regarding the inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotee Deputy Collectors in Uttarakhand. The case had far-reaching implications on how seniority is determined within the civil services of the state.

Background of the Case

The appeals arose out of multiple writ petitions filed by promotee Deputy Collectors challenging the final seniority list dated 09.08.2010. The promotees contended that their entire period of continuous service from their ad hoc appointment should be counted for seniority in accordance with the proviso to Rule 24(4) of the Uttaranchal Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005.

The Uttarakhand High Court had ruled in favor of the promotees and struck down the seniority list. The High Court directed the state government to prepare a new seniority list, treating the promotees as regularly appointed from the dates of their ad hoc appointments. This judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court by the direct recruits and the State of Uttarakhand.

Arguments of the Petitioner (Direct Recruits and the State of Uttarakhand)

• The direct recruits argued that the promotees were appointed on an ad hoc basis in 2004 without following the proper recruitment process.
• They contended that seniority should be determined based on substantive appointments made in accordance with the prescribed rules.
• They relied on the Uttaranchal Government Servant Seniority Rules, 2002, which define substantive appointment as one made after selection according to service rules.
• It was argued that granting seniority based on ad hoc appointments would be contrary to the principles established in the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings.

Arguments of the Respondent (Promotee Deputy Collectors)

• The promotees relied on Rule 24(4) of the 2005 Rules, which provides that continuous officiating service should be counted for seniority.
• They argued that they were promoted on an ad hoc basis due to administrative delays and continued to work uninterruptedly until their regularization in 2007.
• They contended that the High Court had correctly applied the judgment in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, which held that if an employee continuously officiates in a post until regularization, the entire period should be counted for seniority.
• They also challenged the Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2015, which determined year-wise vacancies, arguing that certain promotees who never worked in Uttarakhand were wrongly included in the seniority list.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Deepak Gupta, ruled in favor of the direct recruits and set aside the High Court’s order. The Court held:

“The High Court committed an error in treating the ad hoc appointments of the promotees to be only procedurally defective. The promotees are not entitled to claim seniority from the dates of their initial ad hoc appointments.”

The Supreme Court reiterated that ad hoc appointments made without following proper rules cannot be considered for determining seniority. It cited its earlier rulings, emphasizing that seniority must be counted from the date of substantive appointment and not from an ad hoc promotion.

The Court also upheld the Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2015, which determined year-wise vacancies for direct recruits and promotees. It rejected the promotees’ argument that certain Deputy Collectors who continued to work in Uttar Pradesh should not be counted in the seniority list of Uttarakhand.

Impact of the Judgment

This judgment reaffirms the principle that seniority cannot be granted based on ad hoc service unless the appointment was made following the prescribed selection procedure. It has significant implications for civil service recruitment and promotion policies, ensuring that merit-based and rule-compliant appointments are given precedence in determining seniority.

Petitioner Name: Vinod Giri Goswami & Ors..
Respondent Name: The State of Uttarakhand & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Deepak Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Uttarakhand.
Judgment Date: 14-02-2020.

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

Download Judgment: Vinod Giri Goswami & vs The State of Uttarak Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 14-02-2020.pdf