HANSA DUTT PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions, the contention is that the petitioners are entitled in law to be placed higher up than the respondents in the seniority list prepared, settled and finalized by the State Government. The facts to which there appears to be no dispute, are that in 2003, the petitioners acquired the status of full fledged Tehsildars and simultaneously therewith became entitled to be promoted to the posts of Deputy Collector. There is also no dispute as pleaded specifically in the counter affidavit filed by the State that in 2003 itself the State came to know about the number of posts available in the cadre of Deputy Collector. In 2004, petitioners were given ad-hoc promotion to the posts of Deputy Collector. In 2005, steps taken for direct recruitment to the posts of Deputy Collector were completed and on 18 th July, 2005 the respondents were appointed as direct recruitees to the posts of Deputy Collector. Subsequent thereto, in 2006 Uttarakhand Public Service Commission selected the petitioners for being promoted to the posts of Deputy Collector. The petitioners accordingly, were given appointment to the posts of Deputy Collector with effect from 1 st March, 2007. In the circumstances, the State proceeded on the basis that since the private respondents were appointed substantively on 18 th July, 2005, whereas the petitioners were promoted substantively on 1 st March, 2007, the private respondents are senior to the petitioners and accordingly, prepared the seniority list showing the petitioners as juniors to the private respondents.

(2.) In these writ petitions, it is being contended by the petitioners that their substantive appointments, as were accorded on 1 st March, 2007, in terms of the Rules governing such appointments, would relate back to the date of their initial ad-hoc appointments given in the year 2004 and accordingly, the petitioners shall be deemed to be senior to the private respondents on the basis of their substantive appointments.

(3.) There is no dispute that in 2004 the Rules known as U.P. Civil Servants (Executive) Branch Rules, 1982 governed the subject appointments/promotions. In terms thereof, as defined therein, a substantive appointment is such an appointment, which is not an ad-hoc appointment, made after selection in accordance with the Rules. Rule 16 of the said Rules made it clear that recruitment by promotion to the ordinary cadre shall be made on the basis of merit in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Promotion By Selection In Consultation With Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1970 as amended from time to time. Rule 20 of the 1982 Rules is as follows:-