PAWAN PRATAP SINGH & ORS. versus REEVAN SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 831 · Decided: 10-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 2 S.C.R. 831 
PAWAN PRATAP SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
REEVAN SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.9906 of 2003) 
FEBRUARY 10, 2011 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 
1991: rr.5, 8- Determination of seniority between two groups 
of direct recruits to the posts of Deputy Jailor, one appointed 
in 1991 through the selection made by Selection 
Commission and the other in 1994 by UPPSC - Selection 
· process for the appointments made in 1991 had commenced 
in 1987 while selection process for the appointments made 
A 
B 
in 1994 had commenced in 1990 - High Court holding that 
1994 appointee would rank senior to the 1991 appointee, 
observing that the candidates who were selected in the 
selection process that commenced in 1987 should rank 
senior to those selected in the selection process commencing 
much later in 1990 - Correctness of - Held: Not correct -
1991 appointees cannot be made junior to 1994 appointees 
-Per R.M. Lodha, J.: Rule 8 of the 1991 Rules would govern 
~ 
the controversy and in view thereof for determination of inter 
se seniority between the two groups (1991 and 1994 
. _ appointees by direct recruitment) date of the order of their 
substantive appointment is relevant - Since the substantive 
appointment of 1991 appointees was much /prior in point of 
time, they would rank senior to the 1994 appointees - Per 
Aftab Alam, J: The seniority dispute in instant case has to be 
determined outside the 1991 Rules ~ Basic principles for 
determination of seniority has to be applied - Seniority cannot 
relate back to a period prior to the date of the incumbent's birth 
in the service/cadre, and in facts of this case, the issue of 
seniority between the 1991 appointee and the 1994 appointee 
831 
832 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2011] 2 S.C.R. 
A must be decided on that basis - By this way, the 1991 
,appointee would rank senior to the 1994 appointee - Uttar 
Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection (Commission) Act, 
1988 - Service law - Seniority. 
8 
Service law: Seniority - Legal position with regard to 
determination of seniority in service - Discussed. 
For the period prior to November 25, 1989, the 
statutory agency to make the selection for appointment 
to the post of Deputy Jailer was the Uttar Pradesh Public 
C Service Commission (UPPSC). On December 26, 1987, 
the UPPSC issued an advertisement for filling up 144 
vacancies for the post of Deputy Jailer. The main 
examination was held in 1991 and the result was declared 
on July 27, 1993. On the basis of the list received from 
D the UPPSC, the State Government issued appointments 
\letters to the selected candidates on April 26, 1994. The 
private first respondent was one of them. The selection 
process commenced by UPPSC took long time, 
meanwhile the State Legislature enacted the Uttar 
E Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection (Commission) 
Act, 1988 to establish a Subordinate Service Selection 
Commission for direct recruitment to all Group 'C' posts 
in the State of U.P. On October 27, 1990, the Selection 
Commission issued an advertisement for filling up of 60 
F posts of Deputy Jailor. The examination was held and the 
Selection Commission sent a select list to the State 
Government in 1991 for issuance of appointment letters. 
On November 23, 1991, the State Government issued 
appointment letters to the selected candidates. The 
G appellants were amongst those who were appointed 
pursuant to the selection made by the Selection 
Commission. 
H 
On August 29, 1995, a tentative seniority list of 
Deputy Jailors was notified. In that list, the candidates 
~---~·~ ............ 
PA~ 
"PRATAP SINGH & ORS. v. REEVAN SINGH 833 
.t 
. 
& ORS. 
' 
,. 
appointed In 1991 were shown senior to the candidates 
A 
appointed in 1994. The first respondent filed a writ 
petition challenging the list. The. High Court on application 
of the second proviso to rule 5 of Uttar Pradesh 
Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 held that first 
respondent would rank senior to the appellants, 
B 
observing that the candidates who were selected In the 
selection process that commenced in 1987 should rank 
senior to those selected in the selection process 
.. commencing much later in 1990. The High Court made 
distinction between 'selection' and 'appointment' and . c 
Weld that under the proviso to rule 5 what was 
determinative was not appointment but selection and 
therefore, the appellants were appointed earlier than first 
responden

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