AMIT SINGH versus RAVINDRA NATH PANDEY & ORS. ETC. ETC

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 584 · Decided: 11-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
   [2022] 8 S.C.R. 584
584
AMIT SINGH
v.
RAVINDRA NATH PANDEY & ORS. ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8324-8327 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 11, 2022
[B. R. GAVAI AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992 –
rr. 18 and 19– U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 –
r.8(3) – Seniority of Assistant Consolidation officers (ACOs) – Writ
petitioners who were promoted to the post of ACOs claimed their
seniority above the direct recruits of the same recruitment year –
Single Judge of the High Court directed the promotees of 1997 to
be placed above the direct recruits of that year – Division Bench of
the High Court upheld the findings of Single Judge but modified
the same to the extent that the State shall apply rotasystem to direct
recruits and promotees appointed in one recruitment year – On
appeal, held: Seniority between the promotes and the direct recruits
will have to be determined in accordance with the 1992 Rules – R.5
of the 1992 Rules provides that in regard to the posts of ACOs, 67%
posts would be filled by direct recruitment and 33% posts by
promotion –R.18 of the 1992 Rules mandates that, if in any year of
recruitment, appointments are made both by direct recruitment and
by promotion, a combined select list shall be prepared by taking the
names of candidates from the relevant list, the first name in the list
being of the person appointed by promotion i.e. cyclic order – A
“year of recruitment” has been defined to be a period of twelve
months, commencing from the first day of July of the calendar year
and as such, in the present case, the year of recruitment would be
from 1st of July of 1997 to 30th of June 1998 –In the instant case,
the direct recruits were appointed on 18th August, 1997, whereas
the promotees were appointed on 16th December, 1997, i.e. both
were appointed in the selection/recruitment year 1997-98 – By virtue
of R.19(2) of the 1992 Rules, where the appointment of both the
direct recruits and of the promotees were to be made in the same
year of recruitment, regular appointments should not have been
made unless selections were made from both the sources and a
combined list was prepared in accordancewith Rule 18 of the 1992
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
585
Rules – A combined seniority list made on 29th July, 2005 giving
undue benefits to the direct recruits over the promotes, is in
contravention of the provisions of Rules 18 and 19 of the 1992
Rules –Where appointments were to be made both by direct
recruitment and by promotion, a combined list was to be prepared
in accordance with Rule 18 of the1992 Rules – Hence, the seniority
list dated 29th July 2005, which provided a higher seniority to the
direct recruits, is, not sustainable in law.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. On 25th March 1992, the 1992 Rules were
notified. The perusal of the 1992 Rules would reveal that they
havebeen made in supersession of all existing Rules and Orders
on the subject. Clause (m) of Rule 3 of the 1992 Rules defines
“Year of recruitment’ to mean, a period of twelve months
commencing from the first day of July of a calendaryear. Rule 5 of
the 1992 Rules provides that, insofar as posts of ACOs are
concerned, 67% posts would be filled by direct recruitment
through the Uttar Pradesh SubordinateServices Selection
Commission and 33% posts by promotion from amongst the
substantively appointed Consolidators and Rectangulators
through the Selection Committee. [Paras 15 and 16][593-G-H;
594-A]
2. Rule 18 of the 1992 Rules mandates that, if in any year of
recruitment, appointments are made both by direct recruitment
and by promotion, a combined select list shall be prepared by
taking the names of candidates from the relevant list, in such
manner that the prescribed percentage is maintained, the first
name in the list being of the person appointed by promotion.Sub-
rule (2) of Rule 19 of the 1992 Rules specificallyprovides that,
where in any year of recruitment, appointments are to be made
both by direct recruitment and by promotion, regular
appointments shall not be made unless selections are made from
both the sources and a combined list is prepared in accordance
with Rule 18. Subrule(3) of Rule 19 of the 1992 Rules further
provides that, if more than one orders of appointments are issued
in respect of any one selection, a combined order shall also be
issued, mentioning therein the names of the persons in order of
seniority as determined in th

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