DR. KIRPA RAM MATHUR versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 650 · Decided: 08-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DR. KIRPA RAM MATHUR 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 8, 2001 
B 
[M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Seniority-Determination of-Representation challenging the seniority 
C 
made ';;ifter8 years of selection-Dismissed by High Court-On appeal, held, 
selection based on merit-Selection process cannot be held doubtful-Since 
the appellant accepted the determination of merit .for 8 years, presumption of 
genuinesses of official acts done in due course of perfonnmice of the duties 
is attracted-Uttar Pradesh Regularisqtion of Adhoc Appointments (on posts 
D 
within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979-Rule 7(2). 
The appellant in his representation dated 28.11.1992 after 8 years of 
his selection, challenged the seniority list in which his name was shown 
below Respondent No. 4. Accepting his claim Government ordered on 
21.7.1993 that he would rank senior to Respondent No. 4. This order was 
E 
challenged by the appellant and ·the High Court directed that a fresh 
seniority be determined afresh in accordance with Uttar Pradesh 
Regularisation of Adhoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the 
Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, particularly Rule 7(2) thereof. 
Consequently order dated 10.12.1998 was issued showing Respondent No. 
4 senior to the appellant. Appellant unsuccessfully challenged the said 
F 
order before the High Court. 
Appellant contended that as the respondent had not placed before 
the Court the exact marks assigned to the appellant and Respondent No. 4, 
and appellant having been issued appointment letter first in point of time 
G 
he should be deemed to have secured better merit in the selection and 
hence should be considered superior to Respondent No. 4. 
Respondent No. 4 contended that Selection Committee had not 
determined the merit and had only mentioned their names at random. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
650 
-
K.R. MATHUR v. STATE [SETHI, J.] 
651 
HELD : 1. The reference to the procedure adopted for determining 
the merit by the Selection Committee unequivocally indicates that the 
selection was based upon merit and ranking was given accordingly. Merely 
because the respondent State has failed to produce the marks at this 
belated stage cannot make the selection process either doubtful or be 
termed as not based upon the comparative merits of the candidates 
appearing before the Selection Committee. The presumption of genuineness 
of the official acts done in the due course of performance of the duties is 
attracted in the case particularly when the appellant accepted the position 
of determination of the merit and ranking for a period of over 8 years as is 
evident from order dated 21.7.1993, mentioning that the appellant had 
submitted his representation only on 25.11.1992. [655-F; G; H; 656-A] 
2. The official record also revealed that respondent No. 4 was all 
along treated better in merit than the appellant and rightly placed senior 
to him. The appellant wants this court to re-appreciate the merit of the 
persons who appeared before the Selection Committee at this belated stage 
merely on the failure of the respondents to produce the actual marks 
assigned to each one of the candidates. This is an after-thought and a stale 
claim. [656-G; H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7038 of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.99 of the Allahabad High Court 
in C.M.W.P. No. 14371 of 1999. 
Yashank Pravin Adhyaru, H.S. Parihar, Kuldeep, S. Parihar and Pradeep 
Parihar for the Appellant. 
Sudhir Chandra Agrawala. and Subodh Markandeya S. Muralidhar, 
S. Vallinayagam, Ms. Chitra Markandaya, Ms. Feroza Bano and A.S. Pundir 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SETHI, J. Leave granted. 
Aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.1998 (Annexure P-7) passed by 
respondent No. l, the appellant herein filed a writ petition in the High Court 
challenging the fixation of his seniority by showing respondent No. 4 as senior 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
than him. Finding no merit, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the 
H 
A 
B 
652 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
appellant vide the order impugned in this appeal. Alleging that the order of the 
High Court was against law and the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc 
appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commissio~) 
Rules, 1979, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") the appellant has contended 
that the or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.