U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. versus RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 4 S.C.R. 118 · Decided: 27-04-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 4 S.C.R. 118 
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. 
v. 
RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2011 etc.) 
APRIL 27, 2012 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
c 
Arts. 16(1), 16(4), 16(4A) and 16(48) - Reservation in 
promotion - Consequential/Accelerated seniority- Principles 
emerging from M. Nagraj - Culled out - Held: Articles 16(4A) 
and 16(48) are enabling provisions and the State can make 
the provisions for the same on certain basis or foundation -
0 
In the instant case, the conditions precedent have not been 
satisfied - No exercise as per decision in M. Naqraj has been 
undertaken - Therefore, s.3(7) of the 1994 Act and r.8-A of 
the Rules are ultra vires as they run counter to the dictum in 
M. Nagraj - Uttar Pradesh Public Servants (Reservation for 
E Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward 
Classes) Act, 1994 - s. 3(7) - Uttar Pradesh Government 
Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 - r.8-A as inserted by Uttar 
Pradesh Government Servants Seniority (Third Amendment) 
Rules, 2007. 
F 
Judicial Discipline: 
On a similar issue cases being heard by Lucknow Bench 
of Allahabad High Court - Another Division Bench at 
Allahabad entertained and decided a writ petition involving the 
G same issue - Division Bench at Lucknow holding the said 
decision as per incurium - Held: When Allahabad Bench was 
apprised about the number of matters at Lucknow filed earlier 
in point of time which were being part heard and the hearing 
was in continuum, it would have been advisable to wait for the 
H 
118 
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. RAJ ESH 
119 
KUMAR & ORS. 
verdict at Lucknow Bench or to bring it to the notice of the 
A 
Chief Justice about the similar matters being instituted at both 
the places -
The judicial courtesy and decorum warranted 
such discipline which was expected from the Judges -
Similarly, the Division Bench at Lucknow erroneously treated 
the verdict of Allahabad Bench as per incuriam or not a 
B 
binding precedent - Judicial d;scipline commands in such a 
situation when there is disagreement, to refer the matter to a 
larger Bench. 
Writ petitions were filed before the Lucknow Bench 
C 
of the Allahabad High Court challenging r.8-A as inserted 
by the U.P. Government Servants Seniority (3rd 
Amendment) Rules, 2007, in the U.P. Government 
Servants Seniority Rules, 1991. The assail was also to the 
constitutional validity of s. 3(7) of the Uttar Pradesh 
Public Servants (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, 
D 
Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 
1994. It was the case of the writ petitioners that the State 
Government in gross violation of the constitutional 
provisions enshrined under Arts. 16(4A) and 16(4B) of the 
Constitution of India and the interpretation placed 
E 
thereon by the Constitution Bench in M. Nagrap framed 
the Rules and the U.P. Power Corporation adopted the 
same by amending its Rules and introduced the concept 
of reservation in promotion with accelerated seniority. It 
was contended before the Lucknow Bench that neither 
F 
the State Government nor the Corporation had carried out 
the exercise as per the decision in M. Nagraj and in the 
absence of the same, the provisions of the Act and the 
Rules caused discomfort to the constitutional provisions. 
While the said writ petitions were pending and were G 
being dealt with on merit by a Division Bench at Lucknow, 
another Division Bench of the High Court at Allahabad 
entertained and decided writ petition No. 63217 of 2010 
1. 
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336. 
H 
120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 4 S.C.R. 
A (Mukund Kumar Srivastava vs. State of UP. and Another) 
upholding the validity of the provisions contained in r.8A 
of the 1991 Rules. However, when the said decision was 
brought to the notice of the Division Bench at Lucknow, 
the said Bench, in Writ Petition no. 1389 (S/B) of 2007 
B (Prem Kumar Singh and others v. State of UP. and others), 
held that the decision in Mukund Kumar Srivastava was per 
incurium and that s.3(7) of the 1994 Act and r.8-A of 1991 
Rules were invalid, ultra vires and unconstitutional. It 
quashed the orders relating to seniority passed by the 
c State Government and clarified that in case the State 
Government undertook to provide reservation in 
promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services 
under the State, it could do so after undertaking the 
exercise as required under the constitutional prov

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