KESHAV DEO AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 343 · Decided: 16-10-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KESHA V DEO AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 16, 1998 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
U.P. Services of Engineers (Building and Roads Branch), Class-II Rules, 
1936-Rules 5, 6, 12 and 23(d) (as amended in 1969 and 1971) 
C 
Seniority-Promotees vis-a-vis Direct recruits-Determination--Ad hoc 
appointment-Made after following prescribed procedure-Officiating or ad 
hoc basis-Consideration of-Held, Seniority of promotees has to be counted 
from the date of promotion whether on officiating or ad hoc basis-Hence, 
promotees are entitled to benefit of their service in officiating capacity. 
D 
The appellants were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers on ad 
hoc basis. The said promotions were made within the quota of posts reserved 
for the promotees according to the relevant Service Rules by the Departmental 
Promotion Committee. Since then, the appellants have been working 
uninterruptedly on the post of Assistant Engineers. Subsequently, the State E 
Service Commission confirmed the appellant as Assistant Engineers. 
In the meanwhile, an ad hoc promotee Assistant Engineer like the 
appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court (Saksena's case) claiming 
seniority in the post of Assistant Engineer from the date of initial appointment F 
and officiation on the said post. The High Court allowed the writ petition. 
A similar controversy arose (Yadav's case) before the High Court 
where also another Division Bench of the High Court took the same view. 
Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment in Saksena'a case and Yadav's case 
the appellant-State gave benefit of seniority to the promotees. A seniority list G 
was also published. Aggrieved by the said list respondent No. 3 and 4 filed 
a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court quashed the seniority 
list on the ground that it was against the decision of this Court in P. D. 
Aggarwal's case. The Division Bench also held that the judgment in Sakse(la's 
case and Yadav's case were also contrary to the said decision of this Court H 
343 
344 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A and not good law. The Division Bench further held that the period of service 
rendered by the promotee-Assistant Engineers before the appointment in 
accordance with the Rules, i. e. appointment with the consultation of the 
Commission, could not be counted for the purpose of determining the seniority. 
Hence this appeal. 
B 
In the appeal before this Court the following que.stion arose:-
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellants are 
entitled to seniority on the post of Assistant Engineers from the date they 
have been officiating as such or from the date they were selected and approved 
C by the Commission? 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. From the U. P. Services of Engineers (Buildings and Roads 
Branch), Class-II Rules, 1936 (as amended in 1969 and 1971) the following 
D position emerges: 
E 
F 
(a) The number ofvacancies for each year has to be determined. 
(b) They have to be filled from the sources mentioned in the Rules in 
the proportion specified. 
(c) Selection of candidates from each source to be made in the prescribed 
manner. 
(d) In the case of promotions from Subordinate Engineering Service, 
25 per cent of the vacancies are reserved for them. 
(e) Such of the eandidates who are recommended by the commission 
after following the prescribed procedure will be appointed to fill up the 
vacancies for the specified year. 
(t) If anybody is appointed with affect from a back date, that date will 
G be deemed to be the date of substantive appointment. 
(g) Seniority of such person has to be counted from that date whether 
he was working on that post on officiating or ad hoc basis. 
(h) It follows as a corollary that any person appointed subsequent to the 
H said date will be junior to him. (350-D-E-F-G-H; 351-A) 
KESHAVDEOv.STATE 
345 
1.2. Undisputedly, the appellants possessed the requisite qualifications A 
for the post of Assistant Engineer. Their promotions were within the quota 
prescribed for them as there were sufficient number ofvacancies reserved 
for promotees. They were selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee 
even for their ad hoc promotion. They were recommended by the State Public 
Service Commission after some years. After such recommendation, their B 
promotions were confirmed. The impugned seniority list was prepared on 
that basis after the issue of directions

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