RAJPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein admittedly belongs to the Schedule Tribe category. He was initially appointed as Naib Tehsildar, thereafter, he was promoted as Tehsildar. It is the admitted factual position that on 03.03.2003, he was considered and promoted to the post of Deputy Collector against a post/vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe category by giving the benefit of reservation in terms of the then existing U.P. Public Services Reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes Act, 1994 (herein after referred as Act, 1994) as amended in the year 2001. He was promoted as stated by him against the vacancy of year 2001-02. Obviously, based on such promotion, he was assigned seniority as per the U.P. Government Servants Determination of Seniority Rules, 1991 (herein after referred as Rules, 1991).

(2.) It is not out of place to mention that a provision referred as Rule 8-A was inserted for providing consequential seniority to the reserved category candidates from the date of their promotion based on reservation irrespective of their seniority in the feeding cadre viz-a-viz the general candidates. This was referred as consequential/accelerated seniority. The provisions contained in Section 3(7) of the Act, 1994 providing for reservation to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in matters of promotion in the services under the State of U.P., as also the provision for consequential/accelerated seniority contained in Rule 8-A of the Rules, 1991 were put to challenge before this Court by means of Writ Petition no. 1389 (S/B) of 2007, Prem Kumar Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others; and other connected matters. The said writ petition was decided on 04.01.2011 and Section 3(7) of the Act, 1994, as also Rule 8-A of the Rules, 1991 were declared ultra vires with certain observations/directions. The matter went up to the Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2011, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others and connected appeals which were decided on 27.04.2012 and the judgment is reported in (2012) 7 SCC 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while affirming the judgment of the High Court modified the same by giving retrospective effect to the declaration of the aforesaid provisions of law as ultra vires subject to protection of the promotions made uptil 1997 in terms of Indra Sawhni's case, meaning thereby, the promotions based on reservation made after the said year were illegal having been made under an unconstitutional provision i.e. Section 3(7) of the Act, 1994. Furthermore, the promotions being illegal, the consequence of reversion was to take place and the seniority based on such promotion would also have to go. In pursuance to the aforesaid exercise, the State Government issued various orders. Consequently, it is the admitted factual position that the petitioner was reverted to the post of Tehsildar vide order dated 07.10.2015 which was never challenged by him as informed by Shri Sudhir Pandey, Counsel for the petitioner till filing of this writ petition on 10.12.2020 wherein a challenge has been raised by relief no. 3.Obviously, consequent to the said reversion, the seniority acquired by the petitioner on the promotional post of Deputy Collector was also done away with. The petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector afresh once a vacancy arose in the normal course of things without the benefit of reservation and he was promoted as Deputy Collector on 11.05.2016. Consequently, he was assigned seniority from the said date in terms of the relevant provisions of the Rules, 1991.

(3.) In the interregnum, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by means of writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India bearing no. 272 of 2015, Rajpal Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Sudhir Pandey says that he had challenged the gradation list issued in 2015 by which he was denied the seniority on the post of Deputy Collector consequent to his reversion. However, on being asked as to whether he had challenged the order of reversion also, the learned Counsel could not give any satisfactory reply in this regard.