STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS versus ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 11 S.C.R. 846 · Decided: 21-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2013] 11 S.C.R. 846 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS 
v. 
ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ANR. 
{Civil Appeal No. 6967 of 2013) 
AUGUST 21, 2013 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
SeNice Law: 
c 
Seniority- Date of seniority- Seniority granted w.e.f. the 
date of promotional order -
The promotee claimed 
retrospective seniority w.e.f. the date the vacancy had arisen 
- High Court allowed the claim of the promotee on the 
grounds that the seNice rules provided to decide seniority 
0 w.e.f. the date of arising of vacancy; and that there has been 
hostile discrimination against the promotee as other 10 
promotees had been accorded seniority w.e.f. the date of 
arising of vacancy - Held: Conferment of retrospective 
seniority to the promotee by High Court is not tenable - As 
per seNice rules the seniority has to be computed from the 
E date of appointment, unless otherwise stipulated in the letter 
of appointment - High Court misdirected itself in holding that 
there was discrimination because the promotee in question 
and the other 10 promotees were governed by different set of 
rules - Uttar Pradesh AyuNedic Aur Unani Mahavidyalaya 
F Adhyapako ki Seva Niyamava/i, 1990 - r. 21 - Constitution 
of India - Article 14. 
State Public Service Commission recommended the 
name of respondent No.1 (lecturer in an Ayurvedic 
G College) for promotion to the post of Reader against the 
vacancy which 
arose 
on 
31.7 .2001. 
On 
the 
recommendation of the Commission, the State. 
Government promoted respondent No.1 giving him 
seniority w.e.f. 16.8.2005 i.e. the date of promotion order. 
H 
846 
STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH v ASHOK KUMAR 
847 
SRIVASTAVA 
High Court, by the impugned judgment held that the 
A 
service rules empower the Government to decide the 
seniority from the date of vacancy and that 10 promotees 
had been accorded seniority w.e.f. the date of arising of 
vacancy, hence non-granting of similar benefit to 
respondent No.1 would tantamount to hostile 
B 
discrimination. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The claim of the first respondent for 
conferment of retrospective seniority is absolutely C 
untenable and the High Court has fallen into -error by 
granting him the said benefit. [Para 16] [861-H; 862-A] 
2. Rule 21 of Uttar Pradesh Ayurvedic Aur Unani 
Mahavidyalaya Aadhyapako Ki Seva Niyamavali, 1990, 
0 
the seniority of the candidates is to be determined from 
the date of order of substantive appointment. The proviso 
carves out an exception by stipulating that if the 
appointment order specifies a particular back date with 
effect from which a person is substantively appointed that - E 
date will be deemed to be the order of substantive 
appointment otherwise it would be the date of the issue 
of the oraer. The second proviso clarifies that the 
seniority will be determined when more than one orders 
of appointment are issued in respect of any one selection. 
From the aforesaid, it is luminous that unless otherwise 
F 
stipulated in the letter of appointment, the seniority has 
to be computed from the date of appointment to the post. 
In the case at hand, nothing has been stipulated in the 
letter of appointment. [Para 9] [856-G-H; 857-A-B] 
3. The High Court has misdirected itself by recording 
the finding that there has been hostile discrimination, as 
G 
ten promotees have been accorded seniority relating 
back to the date when the vacancies arose. An additional 
affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellants 
H 
848 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 
A clarifying the position that ten incumbents to whom the 
benefit of retrospective seniority was extended, they were 
selected under Rule 15 of Uttar Pradesh State Medical 
College Teacher Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 
2005. Respondent is governed by different set of rules 
8 and the promotions that have been given to other 
category of teachers are under separate set of rules. 
When the seniority is governed by two separate set of 
rules, it is inconceivable that one can claim seniority on 
the basis of the rule relating to determination of seniority 
C enshrined in the other rules. Respondent No. 1 is bound 
to base his case under Rule 21 of the 1990 Rules by 
which he is governed. The question of hostile 
discrimination would have arisen had the Sta.te 
Government extended the benefit under Rule 21 of the 
1990 Rules to similarly placed persons governed by the 
D same Rules. [Para 6] [853-D-E; 854-F-H; 855-

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