Supreme Court Resolves Seniority Dispute Between Direct Recruits and Promotees in UP Engineering Services

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated August 9, 2018, ruled on a long-standing dispute concerning the inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the post of ‘Assistant Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical)’ in the Uttar Pradesh Development Authorities Centralised Services. The case, Ajay Kumar Singh & Anr. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., involved conflicting claims of direct appointees and promotees regarding seniority in the service cadre.

The Supreme Court held that while consultation with the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) was mandatory under Article 320(3) of the Constitution, the irregularity of non-consultation could be cured by ex post facto consultation. The Court directed the state government to seek the opinion of the UPPSC within two months to finally resolve the dispute.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from the creation of the Uttar Pradesh Development Authorities Centralised Services in 1985 under the U.P. Urban Planning & Development (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1985. The service was to be manned through both direct recruitment and promotion in a 50:50 ratio.

In 1987, an advertisement was published for direct recruitment to nine posts of ‘Assistant Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical)’. The selected candidates, including the appellants, were appointed on an ad hoc basis through an Office Memorandum dated August 25, 1987. Their appointments were explicitly temporary, limited to a maximum period of one year or until regular appointments were made through UPPSC.

On the other hand, a set of promotees, drawn from the cadre of Junior Engineers, were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer based on departmental promotions. A major contention arose when the seniority list published on May 15, 2007, placed the promotees above the direct appointees.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The direct appointees, represented by their counsel, contended that:

• The promotees were confirmed without following the mandatory consultative process with UPPSC.
• The 13th Amendment to the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (Limitation of Function) Regulations, 1954, which removed the consultation requirement, was struck down by the Allahabad High Court in Sushil Chandra Srivastava vs. State of U.P.
• The promotees’ appointments, having been made without consultation, were void ab initio, and therefore, they should be placed below the direct appointees in the seniority list.
• The state’s decision to place promotees above direct recruits was unjustified and in violation of Article 320(3) of the Constitution.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Uttar Pradesh, defending the seniority list, argued that:

• While consultation with UPPSC was indeed required, its absence only made the appointment irregular, not illegal.
• Such irregularities could be cured by retrospective consultation with UPPSC.
• The promotees had been officiating in the post continuously and were entitled to seniority from their initial date of promotion.
• The Constitution Bench judgment in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association vs. State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715 supported their claim that even if initial appointments were irregular, their continuous officiation entitled them to seniority.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court acknowledged the irregularity in the promotion of Junior Engineers without consultation with UPPSC but ruled that it did not make their appointments void. The Court emphasized:

“The absence of consultation with UPPSC is an irregularity, not an illegality, and can be cured through a post-facto consultation.”

The Court further held:

“The promotees have been continuously officiating in the post of Assistant Engineer since their initial appointment. As per settled law, their seniority cannot be disturbed merely due to procedural irregularities.”

Regarding the claims of the direct recruits, the Court stated:

“The direct appointees, too, were appointed on an ad hoc basis, and their own regularization occurred only in 2001. Thus, their claim of superior seniority over the promotees is misplaced.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The state government must consult UPPSC within two months regarding the regularization of promotees.
• The existing seniority list would remain unchanged unless UPPSC finds any of the promotees unsuitable.
• If UPPSC does not raise any objection, the promotees’ seniority would be deemed valid from the date of their continuous officiation.
• The direct recruits would not get seniority over the promotees solely based on procedural lapses.
• The judgment aimed to finally resolve the dispute and prevent further litigation on the issue.

Conclusion

The ruling in Ajay Kumar Singh & Anr. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. settles a long-standing dispute between direct recruits and promotees in Uttar Pradesh’s engineering services. The judgment clarifies that while procedural irregularities such as lack of consultation with UPPSC do not invalidate appointments, they must be rectified post facto. By balancing the claims of both parties and ensuring that settled seniority is not disturbed unfairly, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle of fairness in service matters.

Petitioner Name: Ajay Kumar Singh & Anr..
Respondent Name: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh, India.
Judgment Date: 09-08-2018.

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

Download Judgment: Ajay Kumar Singh & A vs The State of Uttar P Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 09-08-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category