LexMAHMOOD HASAN AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
MAHMOOD HASAN AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
JANUARY 7, 1997
[AM. AHMADI, CJ., S.P. Bi-IARUCHA AND G.T. NANAVATJ, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950-AJticles 32, 136, 137, 142-0rders passed
by Supreme Cowt and High Cowt-Reconsideration of-Promotions to the
posts of Supply lll.lpeclOI:\" in Depmtme/lf of Food and Civil Supplies, U.P.
C made ignoring the seniolity mle.1~Some of the employees filing petitions
before High Cowt and Supreme Cowt on the groltnd that their juniors had
been promoted ignoring them--{)rdc1:;, passed by State Goi'emment, Supreme
Cowt and High Co1111 resulting in promotion of petitioners, and a large mun-
ber of senior employees remaining on lower post~W!it petitions filed by
D senior employees claiming promotion jiwn the date any of their juniors got
promotio11-Review petitions filed by State Govenu>ient praying for review of
earlier orde1:y passed by this Cowt-Held, i11 the exceptio11al situation of the
case,to restore the balance, the orders dated 28.1.1985, 4.12.1987 a11d
1.10.1991 passed by Sltpreme Cowt are recalled a11d all the orders passed
by the High Cowt in the matter after 28.1.1985 as well as all orders of promo-
E lions made by the State Govemme11t dwi11g the period are set aside:--State
Govemmellt is directed to make promotions i11 accordance with relevant ntles
and no1ms a11d accordi11g to tlie State Se11iority List with retrospective effect.
Service Law.
F
U.P. Food a11d Civil Supplies (Supply Branch) Mi11iste1ial Se1vice
Rltles, 1979.
Promotion to the posts of Supply Inspect01:<r-Promotio11s made
proFisi01zally or othe1wise, witholtt adl1C1ing to mies and se11io1ity 1101111~
G Heid, all such promotees as well as those protected by vwious orders of
Supreme Cowt and High Cowt would have to be reve1ted, and promotions
would bemade afresh in accordance with relevant mies and 1101ms according
to State Se11io1ity List with retrospective effect.
In the Department of Fond and Civil Supplies, Government of Uttar
·H Pradesh, appointments to the posts of Supply Inspectors were made by
88
)
M. HASAN v. STATE
89
,•.
direct recruitment, and by promotion of the clerical staff on the basis of A
divisional seniority, in the ratio of 1:1. However, during the procurement
seasons promotions from clerical staff were made to the post of Supply
Inspectors on ad hoc basis, without following the seniority norms. Though
the promotions were to last till the end of the season, the promotees
managed to continue on the said posts. The clerical staff seeking promo-
B
tion to the posts of Supply Inspectors filed writ petitions before the
Allahabad High Court and special leave petitions before this"'Court on the
ground that a large number of junior persons had been promoted as
Supply Inspectors in violation of petitioners' right to seniority.
This Court by an order dated 28.1.1985 passed in S.L.P. No. 3491 of c
1984 directed by way of an interim measure to promote the claimants after
exhausting the seniority list dated 1.4.1976. On 4.12.1987 the Court passed
the final order taking a sympathetic view for those who had been working
as Supply Inspectors for quite some time and allowed them to continue as
such. But the Court made it clear that such continuation in the higher post D
conld not confer any seniority. By another order dated 1.10.1991 this Court
directed to promote 15 petitioners to the posts of' Supply Inspectors with
effect from the date their juniors had been so promoted. The High Court
also in Writ Petition No. 4063 of 1986, by an order dated 5.9.1988 directed
the State Government to promote the petitioners therein.
E
The orders passed by the State Government, the High Court and this
Court gave rise to a large number of writ petitions before this Court. The
case of the petitioners in these writ petitions was that by virtue of the
various orders of the State Government, the High Court and the orders
dated 28.1.1985, 4.12.1987 and 1.10.1991 passell by this Court, a large F
number of employees junior to these petitioner.s were promoted and were
continuing on senior posts of Supply Inspectors, while the petitioners
being seniors and with much more experience were working on lower posts.
The petitioners prayed for promotion in accordance with tile seniority list.
Some of the employees directed to be promoted tiled ;Contempt petition
G
alleging non-compliance of orders of the Court. The State of U.P. filed
review petitExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.