SUSHIL PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject of controversy in this appeal is legality of a selection list for the posts of Assistant Radio Officers in the Uttar Pradesh Police Radio Department. This list was made on 25/10/2013, though the dispute goes back to the year 1998. As per the Uttar Pradesh Police Radio Service Rules, 1979 ("1979 Rules"), the vacancies in the said posts are required to be filled up 50% through direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from the feeder cadre (in this case Radio Inspectors). The appellants before us are from the feeder cadre. There have been several rounds of litigations in the past as regards formulation of the seniority position and the judgment which is under appeal before us, delivered by a Division of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench on 22/7/2014 has in substance, sustained the seniority list of 25/10/2013. The appellants have taken out an application (I.A. No. 163147 of 2021) for deletion of proforma respondent nos. 20 and 21. Respondent no. 21 has passed away on 7/7/2017. So far as the said respondent is concerned, the appeal has abated as against him. It has been pleaded in this application that the Registry has informed that there is no evidence of dasti services on the said two respondents. In the office report of 15/12/2015 (annexed as A1 to the application), it has however been recorded that service of show-cause notice is complete with respect to respondent no. 20. This has been followed by the order of the Court of Registrar dtd. 6/8/2018 (annexed as A3 to the application), in which also it has been recorded that the respondents have been duly served/represented. But no report to that effect is available on records. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the appellants has not pressed this application before us. This application is dismissed as not pressed.

(2.) Requisitions were sent on 11/1/1992 to the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission ("the Commission") for direct recruitment against nineteen vacancies and forty-three vacancies from the Radio Inspectors on permanent basis for the post of Assistant Radio Inspector. These vacancies occurred in different years earlier. The Commission's recommendations were made on 19/9/1995 for the subject posts so far as direct recruits are concerned. For promotee candidates, the recommendations were made on 26/12/1995. Sixteen promotee candidates were issued appointment letters on 31/1/1996 out of the forty-three recommended candidates as the remaining twenty-seven selected candidates had attained the age of superannuation or died. The appointment of the direct recruits took place on 3/7/1996.

(3.) A combined selection list was prepared on 10/12/1999, but it was quashed by the High Court for being in violation of Rules 17 and 22 of the 1979 Rules, in a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the same Court on 12/9/2012. This was a common judgment delivered in three writ petitions. W.P. No. 711(SB) of 2000 was instituted by two Assistant Radio Officers from the reserved category claiming promotion in the next higher post on the basis of their stand that they were the most senior officers in that category. The directly recruited candidates also questioned inter-se seniority with the promotees in Writ Petition No. 104 (SB) of 2000. In Writ Petition No. 10 (SB) of 2000, promotee candidates challenged the same seniority list on the ground that promotee officers were appointed prior to those directly recruited and the directly recruited candidates ought not to be placed above the promotee officers in the combined selection list. The stand of the direct recruits was that as the requisitions for selection were sent to the Commission simultaneously, a common selection list ought to have been prepared and thereafter seniority should have been fixed as per Rule 22. The other point on which the direct recruits founded their case was in relation to inclusion in the seniority list the names of those promotees, who were superannuated or had passed away. It appears that in their places in the selection list, other promotee officers were pushed up. Contention of the direct recruits before the High Court was those should have been declared as fresh vacancies and should have been filled up through a fresh selection process.