Seniority Rights Can’t Be Supplanted by Executive Orders: Allahabad High Court

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court recently adjudicated a complex dispute involving the seniority and promotion of officials within the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Uttar Pradesh. The case primarily revolved around the seniority rights of Area Rationing Officers (ARO) following a government decision to merge the post of Senior Supply Inspector with that of ARO.

The judgment came in the wake of multiple appeals, with the State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by the Additional Chief Secretary of Food and Civil Supplies, and other senior officials challenging an earlier decision that had disrupted the seniority list of these officers. The appeals were numbered Special Appeal No. 541 of 2023, along with connected cases Special Appeal Nos. 272 and 273 of 2023.

Legal Issues Involved

The case centered on several key legal issues, including:

1. Seniority and Merger of Posts: Whether the executive order dated June 30, 2011, which merged the posts of Senior Supply Inspector with that of ARO, could retrospectively alter the seniority of officers already in service.

2. Validity of Executive Orders vs. Statutory Rules: Whether the executive instructions could override or amend statutory rules established under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

3. Locus Standi: Whether the respondents, who were appointed as AROs after the merger, had the right to challenge the seniority list that was altered following their appointment.

Court’s Decision and Observations

The Allahabad High Court, after a thorough examination of the relevant rules and constitutional provisions, ruled in favour of the appellants. The Court found that the earlier judgment had incorrectly interpreted the impact of the executive order in relation to the statutory rules.

Key observations by the Court included:

– On the Nature of Executive Orders: “A government order can be implemented immediately after its issuance, as it has a prospective operation. However, it cannot be applied retrospectively. Also, executive orders cannot override statutory rules or amend or supersede statutory provisions, which have the force of law.”

– On Seniority Rights: The Court emphasized that “Seniority in service cannot be altered by an executive order without amending the relevant service rules. Any such alteration must be prospective and cannot disadvantage officers who were already serving under the existing rules.”

The Court ultimately set aside the previous judgment that had favored the respondents and restored the seniority list dated March 31, 2016, affirming the appellants’ seniority rights.

Also Read

• In Absence of Rules Date of Initial Appointment Will be Criteria for Inter-se Seniority, Rules Supreme Court
• Services Rendered Prior to Regularization Should be Counted for Seniority Irrespective of Undertaking by Employee: Gujarat HC
• Disabled Employee Can’t be Forced to Forfeit Seniority For Choosing Posting Under Beneficial Circular: Supreme Court
  
• In a disciplined force like Army, seniority has all the importance: SC
• Seniority Cannot Be Given Retrospectively, When Rules are Prospective: ALL HC

Parties Involved

– Appellants: State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies, Abhay Singh, and Anjani Kumar Singh.

– Respondents: Sushil Mishra and others.

– Bench: Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Brij Raj Singh

– Counsel for Appellants: V.P. Nag (Additional Chief Standing Counsel), J.N. Mathur (Senior Advocate) assisted by Adv Satyanshu Ojha, Sandeep Dixit (Senior Advocate), assisted by Adv Shobhit Mohan Shukla.

– Counsel for Respondents: Gaurav Mehrotra, Utsav Mishra, Ashutosh Kumar Singh, and others.