STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR. versus MADAN MOHAN JOSHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 8 S.C.R. 591 · Decided: 13-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008) 8 S.C.R. 591 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR. 
v. 
MADAN MOHAN JOSHI AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.3540 Of 2008) 
MAY 13, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Service Law - lnter-se seniority: 
A 
B 
Writ Petition filed by Respondent - Challenging senior-
ity list of University Lecturers - Allowed by High Court - On C 
appeal, held: 'Sand others, who lose their seniority, in the event 
the writ petition was to be allowed, should have been impleaded 
as parties - But that was not done - Inter se seniority may not 
be a fundamental right, but is a civil right - Respective rights 
of seniority of the parties, thus; required determination in their D 
presence - Matter remitted ta High Court far decision afresh 
-
Respondent permitted to file application for impleading 'S' 
and others· as parties - High Court directed to allow such ap-
plication for impleadment and determine the matter expedi-
tiously - Constitution of India, 1950 - Act. 226. 
E 
lnter-se seniority amongst the Lecturers of Kumaon 
University is in question in the present appeal. 
First Respondent was appointed on ad hoc basis as 
a Lecturer in a Government P.G. College, by the State of F 
Uttar Pradesh through Vice:Chancellor, Kumaon Univer-
sity. All Lecturers including the First Respondent were 
continued and treated on deputation with the University. 
The State of Uttar Pradesh framed U.P. Regularization 
Rules, 1979. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said G 
Rules, services of 355 ad hoc Lecturers were regularized. 
However, the cases of nine Lecturers including the First 
Respondent, who. had been working on deputation, were 
left out. Representations were made by the Respondents 
591 
H 
592 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 8 S.C.R.. 
A and others. It was contended that one 'S' was regularized 
even though she was junior to First Respondent. The 
services of nine Lecturers including the First Respondent 
were regularized. However in the seniority list, the First 
Respondent was placed at serial number 137 whereas the 
B said 'S' was placed at serial No.102. Objections were filed 
to the said seniority list. A writ petition was filed by the 
First Respondent before the High Court which was al-
lowed. 
In appeal to this Court, it was submitted on behalf of 
C the State, that the High Court committed a serious error 
insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the State 
of Uttaranchal, having framed the Uttaranchal Higher Edu-
cation (Group A) Service Rules, 2003 was bound by the 
provisions thereof and in that view of the matter, the High 
D Court committed a serious error insofar as it failed to take 
into consideration the effect of the statutory rules gov-
erning the field in their proper perspective. 
Respondent, on the other hand, contended that as 
the instant case was governed by the Rules which were 
E applicable prior to coming into force of 2003 Rules, the 
High Court has not committed any illegality and the im-
pugned judgment is unassailable. It was contended that 
in the writ petition it was not necessary for the First Re-
spondent even to implead the said 'S' and others as party 
F respondents, as no relief had been claimed against them. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Services of the First Respondent as also 
several others including 'S' were regularized in terms of 
G the provisions of the U.P. Regularisation Rules. However, 
the question as to which Rule would govern the inter-se 
~ ... 
seniority amongst the parties has not been determined. 
The question as to whether the said 2003 Rules will have 
retrospective effect or in any event will govern the cases 
H of the parties was thus required to be determined by the 
•· 
... 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. MADAN MOHAN 
593 
AND ORS. 
- + 
High Court. [Paras 13, 14,16] [598.A; G; 600-D] 
A 
2.1. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, pro-
ceeded on the basis as to what would constitute a sub-
stantive appointment. Significantly in the writ petition, 
even 'S' and others who lose their seniority in the event B 
writ petition was to be allowed, were not impleaded as 
)-
parties. They should have been impleaded as parties in 
..; 
the writ application. 'S' and others, if the writ petition is 
allowed, would suffer civil consequences. Inter se senior-
ity may not be a fundamental right, but is a civil right. The 
respective rights of seniority of the parties, thus, required c 
determination in their presence. [Para 17] [600-E-G] 
2.2. The interest of j

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