LexG.P. DOVAL AND OTHERS versus THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c 10 G.P. DOV AL AND OTHERS v. THE CHIEF SJ;:CRETARY GOVERNMENT OF U.P. AND ORS. July 18, 1984 [D.A. DESAI AND A.P. SEN, JJ .] Constitution of India 1950, Articles 14, 16, and 32. Seniority-P'ixatlon of-Past service to be given credit if stop-gap arrangement is followed .by confir1nation. Khandsarl Licei·sing Scheme-.1ppointmer:t of Khandsari lnspectors- D lnter-se seniof'ity of ad hoc appointees and di~ect recruits through Public Service Co111mis.1ion- Fixation of- ft'hetlter to be reckoned Jron1 date of appoint111ent to tenzporary po.H or fron1 date of approval by Public Service Conunission. E F Provisional Seniority List issued-Violation of fimdan1ental right guaran- teed under Articles 14 ar.d 16-Burden of proof on whon lies, Provisio 0.a/ Seniority List isrued in 197J-1¥rir petilion·fi:ed h1 1983- Whether /iqb/e to be disrnissed on g•·ound of latch~s or delay. Wor,:s and Phrases. 'Or fro111 the date of the order of the first appoint- 1nent if such appoint1ne11t is followed by co11/innation'-A·fea11ing of. In the year 1958-59 the State Governn1ent framed the l(handsari Licensing Scheme to regulate the supply of sugarcane to sugar factories. Posts of Khandsari Inspectors initially designated as Licensing Inspectors were created in the pay-scale of Rs. 120-250. Petitioners in the writ G petitions were appointed as Kbandsari lnspecto:s between March aind M<.ty, 1960. Thereafter so1ne of ihc respondents were recruited as J(handsari Inspectors and along with some others who we.re recruited departmentally were approved by Public Service Commission. On March, 22, 1971 the third respondent-the Sugar Comm1ssioner-cin:ulatcd a provisional seniority JI list of Kbandsari Inspectors. G.P. DOYAL v. ClllEF-StCRETARY 71 The peti•io,crs fepresi;rtted against the seniority list contcbding; that ,\ • they were assigned lower place in the seniority list even though they wer~ recruited earlier and have b~en continuously in service. The representations having been rej~cted, writ petitions were filed in this Court. Jn their writ pi!titions to this Court, the petitioners contended that when recruitment .was made ia l be year 1S60, the post of Khandiari [ospector was not within the purview of the Public Service Commission and that they "'°·ere regularly ._recruited to posts which were temporarily sanction· ed but indefinitely continued and therefore, in reckoning their seniority, thCy must be given the benefit or the length of continuous . officiation, and that ' once approval is granted by the Public Service Commission it would relate back to the date of their appointment and that the previous length of service cannot be ignored or denied in computing seniority in the absence of any - statutory rUle or administra~ive instruction. It was further pointed out that y petitioner Nos. 4 to 8. who were recru 11s of 1961 had b~en a~signed places Nos. 30. 34, 42, 35 and 31 respectively i.i the seniority list whil.: recruits of 1963 had scored a march over them-in the provisionll seniority list. The respondents contested the writ petitions contending that by a. Goy~rnment order temporary post of Licensing Inspectors were re-designated as Khandsari Inspectors 2nd that the post right from inception was \\'·ithin the purview of the Public S_ervice Comrllission, that on the framing of the· Kbaadsari Lincensing Scheme, it becan1e necessary to urgently appoint Inspectors to implement the scheme, and therefOre the third respondent- tbe Sagar Co~missioner who was the appointing authority pending reg~lar : selection through open cOmpetition thrDugh Public Service Commission proceeded to make the appointments or the p~titioners as stop.gap or ..id ho~ nature and that their appointment created no right to the post. The drawing up C'f the t~ntative seniority list was justified J.S being based on the_ recoma _ mendJ.tion'i of the Public Service Commission, and it was submitted that the service v. hich can be taken info consideration for determining ~be length or- con1inuous officiation must commence from the date Or. substantive appoint· ment and that the provisional seniority 1ist had been drawn up keeping in view the date of approval by the Public /Service Commi!:osion in respect of each candidate and that there was no error in drawiol up the seniority list. It was further contended_ that promotions which were granted on the basis of the provisional seniority list were not question
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.