MOHAN KARAN versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 328 · Decided: 18-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MOHAN KARAN 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
MARCH 18, 1998 
B 
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
Service law : Seniority : U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 
1973/U.P. Development Authorities Centralised Services Rules, 1985-Rules 
c 
3,7,28,37/U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991-Rules 3,6,2,4, (/) 
and (g)-Promotion of second respondent as Chief Town Planner, who joined 
service in the feeding cadre of Town Planner much earlier to the respondent-
Held: Valid as per Rule 6 of the U.P. Government Servants' Seniority Rules-
1nter-se Seniority shall be counted on the basis of Seniority in the feeding 
cadre-This Rule overrides Rule 7 of the U.P. Development Authorities 
D Centralised Services Rules-Therefore promotion of the respondent can not 
be questioned on account of his seniority in the feeding cadre. 
The appellant joined as Assistant Architect on 7.2. 77 in Planning 
Section of Lucknow Development Authority and was subsequently promoted 
as Executive Officer (RBO) on 7.2.83. The second respondent was appointed 
E as Architect, equivalent to Assistant Town Planner on 29.10.76 and was 
promoted as Senior Architect on 16.5.89. He was promoted to the post of 
Chief Town Planner on 6.7.92. The appellant challenged his promotion in the 
High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ Petition holding that the post 
of Executive Officer held by the appellant was not a cadre post in the centralised 
F 
services Rules and he was absorbed in a lower grade when the second 
respondent was holding a post in the higher grade. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. I. Promotion given to the respondent as Chief Town Planner 
is justified. Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servants' Seniority Rules, 1991 
G overrides all other rules made earlier in other services in the State, whereas 
Rule 7 of the Centralised Services Rules has the overriding effect against 
Rule 28 of those Rules only. The title of U.P. Government Servants' Seniority 
Rules clearly suggests that the seniority among the government servants in 
U.P. should be fixed in the light of these Rules. Therefore Rule 6 of the U.P. 
H Government Servants' Seniority Rules, 1991 which relates to seniority 
328 
';-. 
""' 
~ 
"'"' 
MOI-IAN KARAN v. STATE [K. VENKATASWAMI. .l.j 
329 
where the appointments are by promotion from a single feeding cadre, cannot A 
be ignored as it has overriding effect over Rule 7 of the U.P. Development 
Authorities Centralised Services Rules. Hence, applying Rule 6 of the U.P. 
Government Servants' Seniority Rules, the second respondent must be deemed 
to be senior in view of the admitted fact that he entered into the service 
(feeding cadre) much earlier then the appellant. Consequently, the fact that B 
the appellant is junior to the second respondent in the cadre of Town Planner 
cannot be disputed. Therefore, further promotion given to the second 
respondent as Chief Town Planner cannot be faulted. 1336-G-H; 337-A-HI 
Ashoka Marketing Ltd & Anr. v. P.N.B. & Ors., 1199014 SCC 406 and 
R.K. Sethi and Anr. v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission & Ors., 119971 10 C 
sec 616, referred to. 
Bennion : Statuto1J' Interpretation PP 433-34, referred to. 
1.2. If the appellant has earned his right for promotion dehors claiming 
seniority over the second respondent, the right should be decided independently D 
without reference to this judgment. 1337-Gl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 389 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.92 of the Allahabad High Court E 
in W.P. No. 3849of1992. 
K.C. Jain for E.C. Agrawala for the Appellant. 
Dr. K.S. Chauhan for R.B. Misra for the Respondent. 
Devendra Singh for the Respondent No. 2. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. VEN KA TASW AMI, J. The appellant, feeling aggrieved by the 
promotion given to the second respondent herein as chief Town planner. G 
Bareilly, as per the order dated 6/7.7.92, moved the Allahabad High Court, 
Lucknow Bench, with a prayer for the issue of Writ of Certiorari to quash the 
selection of the second respondent as Chief Town Planner (Mukhya Nagar 
Niyojak) and also for the issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the first 
respondent to consider his case for the post of Chief Town Planner and to 
promote him to the said post with consequential benefits. 
H 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Short facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition No. 3849/92 before 
the High Court are the followi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.