RAM GANESH TRIPATHI AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 248 · Decided: 17-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM GANESH TRIPATHI AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 17. 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Service Law-U.('. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966--Rules 9, 
21-A-Promotion to post of UP Nagar Adhikaris-Selection Grade--
C Eligibility. 
In U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service, the posts of Sahayak Nagar 
Adhikari had to be filled up in equal numbers by promotion and direct 
recruitment. The Government went on making ad hoc appointments to 
those posts for ten years. In the year 1976, only 14 persons were selected 
D by the Public Service Commission, the Government appointed only four 
persons, including appellants 1 to 3 in 1979. The other selected candidates 
who were not given appointments filed Writ Petition for a writ of man-
damus directing the Government to appoint them. Appellants 4 and 13 and 
other regularly selected candidates were given appointments. On 23.5.84, 
the Government issued an order prescribing that only those who had 
' E permanently and substantively served in the capacity of Sahayak Nagar 
Adhikaris for six years will be eligible for promotion to the posts of UP 
Nagar Adhikaris and that only those who had permanently served in the 
posts of UP Nagar Adhikaris would be eligible for selection grade for those 
posts provided they have completed 15 years of service as UP Nagar 
F Adhikari/Sahayak Nagar Adhikari and five years service as UP Nagar · 
Adhikati. Thereafter, on 30.8.84, the Government inserted Rule 21A in the 
U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, for regularising the services of ad 
hoc employees. On 20.11.84, the Government amended its earlier order 
dated 23.5.84 and provided that only those officers who have permanently 
or substantively served as UP Nagar Adhikaris will be eligible for the 
G selection grade provided they have ~ompleted 15 years service as UP Nagar 
Adhikari/Sahayak Nagar Adhikari and five years' service as UP Nagar 
Adhikari. On 23.3.1985, the Government amended the seniority list of 
Sahayak Nagar Adhikaris including only those who were directly recruited 
and those who were regularly promoted to those posts, not including ad 
H hoc appointees in the list. However, on 17.5.85, the Government, exercising 
248 
.. 
R.G. TRIPATHiv. STATE[NANAVATI,J.) 
249 
its power under Rule 21-A, regularised the services of respondents and A 
other ad hoc appointees. Regular appointees on the posts of Sahayak 
Nagar Adhikaris, entitled to substantive promotion to the posts of UP 
Nagar Adhikari, were given promotions on ad hoc basis. The Government 
granted ad hoc promotions to the respondents and other ad hoc appointees 
even though they were not ~ligible and the Government on 29.7.86 passed B 
an order that selection grade in any post will be available only on 20 
percent posts and the minimum eligibility will be the 12 years of regular 
service. On 13.10.93, the Government granted the selection grade to th~ 
respondents and other ad hoc employees who. were regularised only on 
17 .5.85 but denied benefit to the appellants and other regular employees 
even though they were seniors. The appellants challenged the order by C 
filing Writ Petition. During the pendency of the Petition the Government 
published seniority list showing the appellants as seniors to the respon· 
dents. However, the appellants alleged that in spite of showing them as 
seniors in the seniority lists they were not given selection grade. The High 
Court disposed of the petition holding that for getting that relief the D 
appellants should move the authorities concerned. The appellants filed, 
this appeal against the order of the High Court. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : The appellants had challenged the action of giving selection E 
grade to the respon.dents and other ad hoc appointees who were 
regularised only on 17 .5.85 and thus were their juniors. They had also 
sought a mandamus directing the Government to grant them selection 
grade from the date they had become entitled to it in accordanc11 with the 
Government order dated July 29, 1986. It was their grievance that the p 
Government was wrongly treating those ad hoc appointees as regular 
appointees from a date earlier than 17.5.85. in view of these facts and 
circumstances it was not proper for the High Court to dismiss the petition 
on the ground that the list did not survive and leave the appellants again 
to the mercy of the Government which was out to defeat.their legitimate 
claims. [253-A·C] 

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