AJAY KUMAR SHUKLA AND OTHERS versus ARVIND RAI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 12 S.C.R. 1178 · Decided: 08-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
AJAY KUMAR SHUKLA AND OTHERS
v.
ARVIND RAI AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No(s). 5966 of 2021)
DECEMBER 08, 2021
[DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH AND
B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law: Seniority list – Appellants working as Junior
Engineers belonging to Mechanical and Civil Streams whereas
respondents from agricultural stream – Plea of the appellants that
in the seniority list, the department had placed the candidates of
the three lists- Agricultural, Mechanical and Civil in the same
sequence as they were received with their inter se seniority in their
respective lists, the agricultural stream on the top, thereafter
mechanical and lastly the civil stream – Writ petition by the appellant
challenging the seniority list – Single Judge quashed the seniority
lists and  directed the department to draw a fresh seniority list in
accordance with Rules 1991– However, the Division Bench set aside
the order – On appeal, held: Seniority list was prepared by the
Department in contravention to the statutory provision laid down
in Rules 1991 – Appointing Authority would be bound by the
statutory rules and any violation or disregard to the statutory rules
would vitiate the seniority list – It would be arbitrary, de hors the
rules and in conflict with Arts 14 and 16 – Appointing authority
ought to have prepared a combined merit list based upon the
performance or the proficiency on the basis of the marks received
in the selection test as prepared by the Commission – Otherwise, it
would amount to denial of the right of consideration for promotion
to a more meritorious candidate – Appointing Authority erred in the
manner in which the seniority list was prepared by placing the three
select lists forwarded by the Commission on different dates one after
the other en bloc as per the date of receipt of three select lists –
Furthermore, the delay of three to four years in filing the matter
satisfactory explained; and the non-joining of all the affected junior
engineers not fatal – Thus, the order passed by the Single Judge of
the High Court upheld – Uttar Pradesh Government Servants
[2021] 12 S.C.R. 1178
1178
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1179
Seniority Rules, 1991 – rr. 5, 8 – Uttar Pradesh Minor Irrigation
Department Subordinate Engineering Service Rules, 2009 –
Constitution of India – Arts. 14 and 16(1).
Service Law: Promotion – Right to promotion – Held: Is not
considered to be a fundamental right but consideration for promotion
has now evolved as a fundamental right – Constitution of India –
Art. 14 and 16(1).
Jurisprudence: Service jurisprudence – Impleadment of
parties – Held: It is not essential to implead each and every one
who could be affected but if a section of such affected employees is
impleaded then the interest of all is represented and protected –
Impleadment of a few of the affected employees would be sufficient
compliance of the principle of joinder of parties and they could
defend the interest of all affected persons in their representative
capacity – Non-joining of all the parties not fatal.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There was one selection for the three streams
i.e. Agricultural, Mechanical and Civil. There is one cadre of
Junior Engineers in the Minor Irrigation Department and
therefore, there has to be one seniority list of Junior Engineers.
[Para 18][1201-B-C]
1.2 The Appointing Authority, in fact, committed an error
in the manner in which the seniority list was prepared by placing
the three select lists forwarded by the Commission on different
dates one after the other en bloc as per the date of receipt of
three select lists. It is not the case either of the private
respondents, State or the Commission that appointment letters
have been issued separately as and when the select lists were
received. In fact, the appointment letters of all the three streams
were issued in October 2001, after about 10 to 11 months of the
receipt of the third list i.e. of the Civil stream in November 2000.
Apparently by an oversight, the Appointing Authority failed to
prepare the combined seniority list as required under the Uttar
Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991, be it Rule
5 or Rule 8 with respect to the selection of the appellants and
private-respondents. [Para 20][1203-C-E]
AJAY KUMAR SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. ARVIND RAI AND
OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
1.3 In October, 2001, when the appointment letters were
issued it carried a 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.