STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus JALAL UDDIN AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 92 · Decided: 05-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST A TE OF UTT AR PRADESH 
v. 
JALAL UDDIN AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 5, 2004 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
U.P. Higher Education (Group A) Service Rules,1985/U.P. Government 
C Servants Criteria for Recruitment by Promotion Rules,1994: r.16/rr.2 and 4-
Principal of Government Degree College-Promotion-Criteria-High Court 
directing promotion on the basis of 1985 Rules;--State Government's plea that 
1985 Rules were no longer operative and, instead, 1994 Rules were 
applicable-Held, High Court to hear the writ petition afresh and to consider 
D applicability and effect of 1994 Rules to the facts of the case. 
Respondent no. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking 
a direction to the State Government to promote him as a Principal of the 
Government Degree College on the basis of seniority as envisaged by Rule 
16 of the U.P. Higher Education (Group-A) Service Rules, 1985. The writ 
E petition was allowed. 
F 
In the appeal filed by the State Government it was contended that 
the High Court erred in ignoring the U.P. Government Servants Criterio 
for Recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994 and in applying the 1985 Rules, 
which were no longer operative: 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter back to the High 
Court, the Court 
HELD: In the counter affidavit filed by the State Government before 
the High Court, a clear reference was made to the U.P. Government 
G Servants Criteria for Recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994 and the 
amendment made in 1996, Though the High Court referred to some 
paragraphs of the counter affidavit, it did not take note of the 1994 Rules 
and its effect on the controversy. Therefore, the proper course would be 
to direct the High Court to hear the writ petition afresh. The applicability 
H 
92 
ST A TE v. JALAL UDDIN [PASAYA T ,J.] 
93 
and the effect of the 1994 Rules to the facts of the present case shall be A 
considered by the High Court in the proper perspective. [95-E, F) 
N.K. Agarwal v. Kashi Gramin Bank, Varanasi (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1333; 
Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR (1967) SC 1910 State 
of Mysore and Anr. v. Syed Mahamood and Ors., AIR (1968) SC 1113 and 
K.Samantaray v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR (2003) SC 4422, referred B 
to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6511 of2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.2003 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.A. No. 6910 of 2001. 
C 
Dinesh Dwivedi, Ranvir Singh and Ms. Niranjana Singh for the 
Appellant. 
Raj Kumar Gupta and A.N. Bardiyar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Leave granted. 
D 
The State of Uttar Pradesh calls in question legality of the judgment 
rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The writ petition E 
was filed by the present respondent No.1 with the prayer that he should be 
promoted as Principal of the Government Degree College. Grievance was 
made that though his juniors have been promoted but he had not been 
promoted. Relying on earlier judgment of the High Court in NK. Agarwal v. 
Kashi Gramin Bank, Varanasi, (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1333, the writ petition was 
allowed. Direction was given that present respondent No.1 should be promoted F 
as Principal of a Government Degree College with effect from the earliest 
date on which his juniors were promoted, his seniority was to be fixed with 
effect from that date and he shall be given arrears within two months. 
According to the High Court, the criteria for promotion have to be so as 
given in Rule 16 of the U.P. Higher Education (Group A) Service Rules, G 
1985. According to the said rules, seniority subject to rejection of unfit was 
the criteria in terms of Rule 16(1)(b). 
1.1 support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted 
that the High Court completely ignored the relevant rules and based its 
judgment on a rule which was no longer operative. The 1985 Rules had H 
94 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A become inoperative in view of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Criteria 
for Recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994 (in short the '1994 Rules') as 
modified/amended from time to time. The said rules have been framed in 
exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of 
India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). In Rule 2 it was clearly stipulated 
that the rules had over-riding effect over any other rules made by the 
B Government under the proviso 

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