STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. SHEO NANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief history of the litigation leading to the passing of the impugned order dated March 5, 1991 may be noticed in order to appreciate the real dispute between the parties. In 1983 a large number of writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) which were heard by a Division Bench on January 18, 1984. The writ petitions related to employees of the Marketing Division in the Food and Civil Supplies Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh comprising Marketing Inspectors whose appointment under the relevant recruitment rules could be by direct recruitment and promotion in the ratio of 50:50. The grievance made by the petitioners was that while their juniors had been promoted as Marketing Inspectors against regular posts they had been ignored merely because they were occupying seasonal posts and were thus discriminated against. They, therefore, prayed that they should not be reverted and should be allowed to continue as long as the injuniors were occupying the post of Marketing Inspectors. Out of the batch of petitions, certain petitions were filed by temporary junior grade clerks or accountants, who also apprehended their retrenchment or reversion, since they too were promoted on a temporary post as Marketing Inspectors and were likely to be reverted to their original posts by August 31, 1983. Likewise a petition was also filed by certain clerks who apprehended that on the reversion of the junior clerks temporarily occupying the post of Marketing Inspectors, they too will be reverted to the post of Kamdar, if not retrenched. This batch of writ petitions came to be disposed of on 18th January, 1984. The Division Bench disposed of the writ petitions relating to reversion from the post of Marketing Inspectors in terms of its earlier order dated September 28, 1983 subject to certain modifications. So also the writ petitions relating to consequential reversions/ retrenchments from the posts of clerks or accountants were disposed of holding that they did not need any separate treatment. It was held that reversions/ retrenchments were consequential to the reversions of Marketing Inspectors and, therefore, they did not need any separate treatment. Inasmuch as fresh reversion orders were concerned, it was stated that they may be passed in terms of the court's order dated September 28, 1993 as modified by the Division Bench. The orders which were passed in a batch of writ petitions on different dates in August and September. 1983 were carried to this Court by special leave. Those petitions were disposed of by this Court by a speaking order dated January 20, 1984. The petitioners in the said group of petitions were promoted to the cadre of Marketing Inspectors from the feeder cadre of clerks. During the procurement season the strength in the cadre of Marketing Inspectors was required to be augmented to meet the immediate need. Ad hoc promotions used to be given and once the need was met, reversions followed as a matter of course at the end of procurement season. To stall such reversions a large number of writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad. In some of those writ petitions interim orders were passed against effecting reversions. A Division Bench of the High Court finally disposed of the writ petition No. 6763 of 1983 observing that the promotions of the petitioners in that case were ad-hoc and up to the period ending on August 31. 1983 and, therefore, they had no right to continue on the post of Marketing Inspectors. The other writ petitions involving the same question were disposed of in the same manner relying on that judgment. The petitioners whose writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court approached this Court by way of special leave. When the said special leave petition came up for hearing before this Court its attention was drawn to an order made by a Division Bench of the same High Court on September 20, 1983 in Writ Petition No. 3440 of 1983, the relevant portion whereof extracted by this Court in its order reads as under (AIR 1984 SC 634, para 5):

(2.) After this judgment certain appointments which were made on ad hoc basis to meet the need of the procurement season were terminated by the order of August 31, 1984. That order reads as under:

(3.) We, therefore, set aside the order and direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to comply with the order of August 27, 1984 which is based on this Court's order in Sheo Dutt Sharma's case (AIR 1984 SC 634). We clarify that the seniormost seasonal employees to be accommodated in regular posts shall be against the available posts only in the regular cadre and there is no question of accommodating them by creation of supernumerary posts. The appeal will stand disposed of with the above clarifications with no order as to costs. The State Government should comply in accordance with the order of the Division Bench dated August 27, 1984, within a period of six months from today.