U.P. SECRETARIAT U.D.A. ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS JOINT SECRETARY, G.C. SRIVASTAVA AND ORS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 586 · Decided: 27-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
U.P. SECRETARIAT U.D.A. ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS 
JOINT SECRETARY, G.C. SRIVASTAVA AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. 
JANUARY 27, 1997 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
S e1vice Law : 
C 
U.P. Secretariat Services--Upper Division Clerk-!11ter-se seni01ity be-
twee11 direct recntits and promotees-Held: Appointme11ts made in officiating 
capacity against vaca11cies reserved for direct recntitment though no direct 
recntitment had take11 place-He11ce not according to Rules a11d within 
quoter-Direct recntit to be treated as such from date 011 which he actually 
joins the service though vacancies did exist prior to that-Consequently 
D promotees also •equired to be fitted into the sovice from the date when they 
are entitled to fitment in accorda11ce with quota a11d rota presclibed under the 
Rules. 
Direct Rt?crnit Class II Enginee1ing Officers' Association v. State of 
E Maharashtra & Ors., [1990] 2 sec 715, followed. 
F 
G 
~· 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICT-ION : Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 25086 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.7.96 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 6200 of 1993. 
Gopal Subramaniam, R.N. Keshwani and Santosh Kumar for the 
Petitioners. 
AK.. Srivastava for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This ·special leave petition has been filed against the order of the 
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, made on July 2, 1996 in Writ 
Petition No. 6200/93. When the direct recruits had filed the special leave 
H petition, this Court by order dated November 20, 1996 dismissed the same. 
586 
... 
•• 
U.P. SECRETARIAT U.D.A. ASSON. v. STATE 
587 
~ Shri Gopal Subramaniam, learned. senior counsel for the petitioners, who A 
are now promotee U.D.C. in the U.P. Secretariat Services contends that 
the learned Judges have given their reasoning at pages 58 and 59 thus : 
"from the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is 
evident that the initial appointment of the promotees on officiating B 
ba;;is were not in accordance with the Rules, 1942, rather it de hors 
the rules. Contention of the petitioner that the quota as envisaged 
in Rule 21 of Rules 1942, has broken_down or collapsed simply for 
the reason that due to certain administrative difficulties neither 
the selection for direct recruit nor the selection by promotion 
against the vacancies took place in the selection years with effect 
from 1971 to 1978, and hence according to the decision of Hon'ble 
Supreme Court in O.P. Singh v. Union of India, [1994] 4 SCC 450 
c 
and Direct Recrnit Class II Officers' Case (supra), the petitioners 
(promotees) ·should not be pushed down before the appointees 
from the other sources inducted into the service one later date D 
(proposition E of the Direct Recrnit Class II case (supra), appears 
to be misconceived. Petitioners were not at all prejudiced because 
of non-selection during the aforesaid period for the reasons that 
the direct recruitment also did not take place during the aforesaid 
period and that the petitioners in accordance with the seniority on 
the post of L.D .A. were given officiating promotion on the post of 
U .D .A. against the vacancies existing in their quota or otherwise. 
In view of the aforesaid position, it cannot be said that the quota 
rule, as envisaged, under Rule 21 of Rules 1942 has collapsed 
down." 
The above reasoning is not correct for the n~ason that during the 
relevant. period neither direct recruitment nor promotions were made in 
accordance with the rules. As a consequence, since the promotees have 
been continuously officiating on the posts they are entitled to be put back 
F 
to the date from which they have been continuously officiating on the G 
ground that rule of quota has broken down. We find no force in the 
contention. From the judgment of the Constitution bench of this Coutt in 
Direct Recrnit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of 
Maharashtra & Ors., (1990] 2 SCC 715, it is now settled law that merely 
because temporary appointment or promotion came to be made, seniority 
cannot be counted from the date of officiation except when the appoint - H 
588 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A ment was made in accordance with rules. Though appointment is tem-
+-
porary, if it was made in accordance with rules and to a substantive 
vacancy, seniority will be counted from the date of temporary promotion. 
Necessarily, the quota and rota required to be maintained so 

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