In a significant ruling on service law, the Allahabad High Court has held that the State cannot be permitted to alter the seniority of employees after a lapse of seven years, especially when the issue had been repeatedly considered and settled. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh dismissed two special appeals filed by the State of U.P. and a group of direct recruits, thereby affirming a learned Single Judge’s order that quashed the State’s move to change the effective date of promotion for a group of Secretariat employees.
The core legal issue before the court was the validity of granting promotions with a retrospective effect and the subsequent dispute over seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the Secretariat, Administration Department. The court upheld the promotions granted from a back date, finding it permissible under the relevant service rules.
Background of the Dispute
The case originated from two writ petitions filed by promotee Review Officers. These employees, initially appointed as Junior Grade Clerks in 1990 and promoted to Assistant Review Officers in 2005, were further promoted to the post of Review Officer for the selection year 2015-16.
The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held its meeting on June 30, 2016. Following approval from the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, promotion orders were issued on July 13, 2016, but were made effective from June 30, 2016.
This ante-dating of promotion became a point of contention. Direct recruits from the 2013 batch objected to a tentative seniority list issued on July 23, 2016. A three-member committee was constituted, which rejected the objections, leading to the publication of a final seniority list on August 5, 2016. The issue was raised again in 2018 and 2022, and on both occasions, committees constituted by the State rejected the objections of the direct recruits and upheld the promotees’ date of appointment as June 30, 2016. These decisions were never challenged in a judicial forum.
However, in a sudden reversal, the State issued show-cause notices to the promotees on July 14, 2023, stating their promotion from a back date was an “error”. Despite detailed replies from the employees, the State authorities, via an order dated August 9, 2023, changed their effective promotion date to July 13, 2016. This was followed by a revised seniority list on September 6, 2023, and consequential promotion orders, placing the promotees lower in seniority.
The promotees challenged these actions before a learned Single Judge, who allowed their writ petitions on February 24, 2025, setting aside the state’s orders. The State of U.P. and two direct recruits then filed the present special appeals against this judgment.
Arguments of the Parties
The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, argued that the learned Single Judge had erred by ignoring service rules that, according to the State, did not permit ante-dated promotions. It was contended that seniority must be granted from the date of the promotion order and the State was merely correcting a past error.
Senior Counsel H.G.S. Parihar, appearing for the direct-recruit appellants, supported the State’s arguments and added that his clients were not given a proper opportunity of hearing before the Single Judge.
Refuting these claims, counsel for the promotees, Gaurav Mehrotra, argued that the issue of seniority was settled in 2016 and had been affirmed twice thereafter. He submitted that the State’s attempt to unsettle a settled position after seven years was arbitrary. It was further contended that the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991, explicitly empower the State to grant seniority from a prior date.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Division Bench systematically addressed the appellants’ arguments.
On the Plea of No Hearing Opportunity: The Court found no merit in the claim that the direct recruits were not heard. It noted from the record that they were impleaded as private respondents in the writ petition and had ample opportunity to file their responses but chose not to. The Court cited Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, observing that in service matters affecting a large number of people, impleading some in a representative capacity is sufficient. The bench held, “it is well settled that impleadment of a few of the affected employees would be sufficient compliance of the principle of joinder of parties and they could defend the interest of all affected persons in their representative capacity.”
On the Legality of Ante-Dated Promotion: The central issue hinged on the interpretation of Rule 8 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991. While the main part of Rule 8(1) determines seniority from the date of the substantive appointment order, the Court focused on its first proviso, which states: “Provided that if the appointment order specifies a particular back date, with effect from which a person is substantively appointed, that date will be deemed to be the date of order of substantive appointment…”
The Court, relying on established principles of statutory interpretation from cases like S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, held that a proviso carves out an exception to the general rule. It concluded that the proviso unequivocally enabled the employer to grant promotions from a back date. The Court remarked that if promotions could only be effective from the date of the order, “then there was no purpose of incorporating the proviso.”
On the State’s Conduct: The Court found the State’s actions to be arbitrary. It gave significant weight to a letter dated June 27, 2016, in which the State itself had requested the Public Service Commission to expedite the process so that promotions could be made “prior to 30.06.2016”. The Court observed, “This letter is indicative of the fact that the State was desirous of completing the exercise of promotion upto 30.06.2016 i.e. prior to the new selection year.”
The bench sharply questioned the State’s reversal of its stand after seven years, especially after three separate committees had upheld the original promotion date. The Court asked, “Now, what was that material which came to the notice of the State which persuaded it to take a different stand and what was considered just and right suddenly after 7 years became erroneous.”
While the learned Single Judge had invoked the principle of res-judicata, the Division Bench found this proposition “debatable” in the context of administrative orders but ultimately agreed with the final conclusion for its own separately recorded reasons.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the learned Single Judge’s order did not suffer from any patent illegality. Finding no reason to interfere, the Court upheld the judgment quashing the State’s revised seniority list and orders.
“This Court is satisfied that the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any patent illegality which may persuade this Court to take any different view,” the bench stated.
Both special appeals were dismissed.
