T.N. SAXENA & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 719 · Decided: 07-05-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
./ 
• -
• 
719 
T.N. SAXENA & OTHERS 
v. 
STA'TE OF U.P. & OTHERS 
May1, 1982 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A, VARADARAJAN, JJ.J 
U.P. Government Servict-Sentorit)!·-Recruilment from.two Jources-Prtr 
mottf$ appointed first and direct recruits much later-Seniority of prOmotees based 
on length of service not affected by later induction of direct recruits. 
According to the relevant orders of the State Government, seniorily in 
service was generally to be determined. from the date of substantive appoint. 
A 
8 
c 
ment }n a substantive vacancy but. where appointments to a service were made 
D 
both by promotion and direct recruitment, a combined waiting list was to be 
prepared by taking candidates alternately from the . lists of prorrioted candidates 
and direct reccuits aod appointments made in accordance with that combined 
list. 
.. 
The posts of Senior Marketing Inspector under the Food & Supplies 
Department of U.P. were l:'eing filled up entirely by way of promotion from the 
category of Marketing Inspector. But, with effect fratµ April 15, 1964, the State. 
Government decided to fill up these posts by way of promotion as well as direct 
• recruitment in the ratio of 50:50. · 
Respondents 2 to S w;o had entered service as Marketing Inspectors were 
I promoted as Senior Marketing Inspectors in September, 1964,,in the quota of 
promotees. The appellants, who were direct recruits to the post of Senior Mar~ 
keting Inspector were appointed much later but were placed above respdndents ,2 
to Sin the s~niority list of Senior Marketing Inspectors issued in 1977 which 
resulted in the reversion df respondents 2 to 5 from the posts of Deputy Market~ 
ing Region~! Officers to which.they had been further promoted in 1974. . 
E 
F 
Allowing the petition of respondents 2 to 5, the High Court quashed tho 
G 
seniority list holding that appointments already made by departmental promotion 
. to fUbstantive posts would not be affected by the direct recruits coming subsc-
qu.ently through tho .Public Service Commission .. 
In appeal, the appellants contended that the direct recruits had to be ad. 
justed alternately with the proniotees even though the promotees had been 
appointe~ in their owp quota Ion~ before the direct l'Cl'ruits join«!. service, 
H 
• 
720 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. [1982) 3 s.c.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, 
B 
c 
HELD l. The promoteeSi- were CntitJed tO maintain their seniority as 
from the date of their promotion and it was '·not open to the Government to 
prepare a seniority Jist by pushing the promotees far below the position of senio-
rity which they would legally occupy merely to accommodate the direQt recruits. 
The rule of alternate seniority does not mean that the genuine seniority· based on 
length of service should be completely overlooked. [726 G] · 
2. The normal rule is that seniority should be measured by the length of 
continuous officiating service unless a contrary intention appears from the rules.· 
In this Case, according to the orders issued by the Government, the length of 
service was the prime criterion for determining seniority. [726 A-B] 
~-
Promotees regularly appointed 
duri~g a particular period within the 
quota of promotees can claim their .whole lepgfh of service for the purpose' of 
seniority as against direct recruits who may turn up in succeeding periods. [726 C] 
Bishan Sarup Gupta v. Union of India & Ors., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 104 held 
inapplicable; N.K. Chauhan & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [19(7] I S.C.R. 
D 
1037 and B.S. Yadav & Or~. v. State. of Haryana & Ors., [1980] 1S.C.R.1024 
referred to. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3148 of 
1979. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
the 18th May, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition 
• 
No. 1372 of 1977. 
"" 
F 
G 
H 
Dr. Y.S. Chita/e and A.K. Srivastaw1 for the Appellant. 
R.K. Garg, G.N. '])ikshit, V.J. Francis, D.K. Garg, S. Dikshit 
and Ashok Grover for the Respondents. 
_, 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against 
a judgment dated 18.S.79 of the Allahabad High Court quashing the 
impugned seniority list dated 4.4.77 issued by the Government of 
U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Government') which resulted in 
the reversion of respondents 2 to 5 to lower posts. 
The facts of the case lie within a narrow com'pass and, in our 
opinion, seem to be concluded by several decisions of this Court, 
,

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