The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench has delivered a significant ruling in the case of Adarsh Kumar Srivastav and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, deciding on appeals filed by Junior Engineers (Civil) against a seniority list issued by the Irrigation Department on June 10, 2016. The appellants, primarily diploma holders, contended their seniority ranking compared to degree holders who were appointed under a later recruitment advertisement.
The dispute arose from two separate recruitments for the Junior Engineer (Civil) posts: an advertisement issued on December 2, 2000, for 954 posts and another on December 31, 2002, for 361 backlog vacancies. Due to interim court orders and procedural delays, the selection process for the earlier advertisement could not be concluded until 2006, while appointments under the later advertisement were completed in 2005.
Key Legal Issues
1. Seniority Determination: Whether seniority could be granted retrospectively based on the earlier advertisement or must be determined from the date of substantive appointment.
2. Legality of Backlog Recruitment: The appellants argued that the backlog recruitment under the 2002 advertisement was not legitimate, as it failed to meet criteria for being termed as “backlog vacancies.”
3. Application of U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991: Interpretation of Rule 8, which governs seniority where appointments are made by both promotion and direct recruitment.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The Bench, comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, upheld the seniority list dated June 10, 2016, and dismissed the appeals. Key observations included:
Seniority Based on Appointment Dates: The court ruled that seniority is determined by the date of substantive appointment unless service rules specify otherwise. Since the appellants were appointed in 2006, after the contesting respondents in 2005, their claims for higher seniority were untenable.
No Provision for Retrospective Seniority: The court emphasized that retrospective seniority cannot be granted in the absence of specific provisions in the service rules. It rejected the appellants’ argument that their seniority should relate back to the 2000 advertisement.
Validity of the Backlog Recruitment: The court found no procedural flaws in the 2002 recruitment for backlog vacancies, as this issue was not adequately raised before the single judge or at earlier stages.
Rule 8 Application: The court clarified that Rule 8 of the Seniority Rules did not apply since the appointments were made through two separate recruitment processes.
Key Participants
Bench: Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla.
Appellants’ Counsel: Paramanand Asthana, Ajeet Kumar, Virendra Kumar Dubey, and Gaurav Mehrotra.
Respondents’ Counsel: C.S.C., and Vidhu Bhushan Kalia.
