1997 JTR(SC) 130
1997 2 AWC 697 ; 1997 75 FLR 810 ; 1997 2 JT 461 ; 1999 1 KLJ(NOC) 31 ; 1997 LIC 1021 ; 1997 1 LLJ 918 ; 1997 2 RSJ 52 ; 1997 1 Scale 752 ; 1999 1 SCC 278 ; 1999 SCC(L&S) 289 ; 1997 1 SCR 586 ; 1997 2 SCT 13 ; 1997 1 SLR 507 ; 1997 1 UPLBEC 592 ; 1997 2 Supreme 651
1997(2) Supreme 651
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
U.P. Secretariat U.D.A. Association Through its Joint Secretary, G.C. Srivastava & Ors. -Petitioners
versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25086 of 1996
Decided on 27-1-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners : Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Adv., R.N. Keshwani and Santosh Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : A.K. Srivastava, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because temporary appointment or promotion came to be made, seniority can not be counted from the date of officiation except when appointment was made in accordance with rules.
(A) The relevant statutory provisions under Rule 21 of the Rules 1942 govern the quota and seniority principles in service appointments, requiring that promotions and direct appointments adhere to established rules and selection years. The Supreme Courts precedents, including O.P. Singhal v. Union of India and Direct Recruit Class II Officers case, clarify that temporary or irregular appointments do not reset or disrupt seniority calculations unless made in accordance with rules, and that the quota system cannot be deemed collapsed merely due to administrative delays or non-compliance. These authorities directly apply to assess whether promotees are entitled to regularization and seniority based on continuous officiating.
(B) Key legal principles include: seniority is counted from the date of substantive appointment in accordance with rules; temporary appointments or promotions made outside rules do not generate seniority; quota and rota systems must be maintained; non-selection during relevant periods does not equate to breakdown of rules if both direct and promotional processes were similarly affected; and the court must not disturb valid quota regulations merely due to administrative inaction.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, promotee Upper Division Assistants in the U.P. Secretariat Services, challenged an order dismissing their special leave petition against the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had held that since neither direct recruitment nor promotions were made in accordance with the Rules 1942 during the relevant period from 1971 to 1978, the petitioners were not prejudiced and were required to be adjusted from the date they actually officiated, denying them relief based on quota breakdown contentions.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench correctly observed that the quota rule under Rule 21 had not collapsed, as the failure to hold selections affected both direct and promotional streams equally, and temporary officiating appointments could not override the requirement for regular appointments within quota. The promotees were not entitled to reset seniority from an earlier date since their appointments were not in conformity with the rules, and they had to be fitted into the service from the date of their officiating appointments.
Issues:
Whether the quota under Rule 21 of Rules 1942 can be deemed broken down due to administrative delays in selection and promotion; whether promotees officiating during the non-recruitment period are entitled to seniority from an earlier date; and whether the High Court was correct in declining relief to the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where appointments and promotions are made outside the rules and not in accordance with the prescribed quota and selection process, seniority cannot be counted from the date of officiation, and the quota system remains intact; thus, promotees must be adjusted from the date of their actual officiating appointments, and the plea of breakdown of quota fails.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed, and the order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the petition is upheld.
(A) The relevant statutory provisions under Rule 21 of the Rules 1942 govern the quota and seniority principles in service appointments, requiring that promotions and direct appointments adhere to established rules and selection years. The Supreme Courts precedents, including O.P. Singhal v. Union of India and Direct Recruit Class II Officers case, clarify that temporary or irregular appointments do not reset or disrupt seniority calculations unless made in accordance with rules, and that the quota system cannot be deemed collapsed merely due to administrative delays or non-compliance. These authorities directly apply to assess whether promotees are entitled to regularization and seniority based on continuous officiating.
(B) Key legal principles include: seniority is counted from the date of substantive appointment in accordance with rules; temporary appointments or promotions made outside rules do not generate seniority; quota and rota systems must be maintained; non-selection during relevant periods does not equate to breakdown of rules if both direct and promotional processes were similarly affected; and the court must not disturb valid quota regulations merely due to administrative inaction.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, promotee Upper Division Assistants in the U.P. Secretariat Services, challenged an order dismissing their special leave petition against the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had held that since neither direct recruitment nor promotions were made in accordance with the Rules 1942 during the relevant period from 1971 to 1978, the petitioners were not prejudiced and were required to be adjusted from the date they actually officiated, denying them relief based on quota breakdown contentions.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench correctly observed that the quota rule under Rule 21 had not collapsed, as the failure to hold selections affected both direct and promotional streams equally, and temporary officiating appointments could not override the requirement for regular appointments within quota. The promotees were not entitled to reset seniority from an earlier date since their appointments were not in conformity with the rules, and they had to be fitted into the service from the date of their officiating appointments.
Issues:
Whether the quota under Rule 21 of Rules 1942 can be deemed broken down due to administrative delays in selection and promotion; whether promotees officiating during the non-recruitment period are entitled to seniority from an earlier date; and whether the High Court was correct in declining relief to the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where appointments and promotions are made outside the rules and not in accordance with the prescribed quota and selection process, seniority cannot be counted from the date of officiation, and the quota system remains intact; thus, promotees must be adjusted from the date of their actual officiating appointments, and the plea of breakdown of quota fails.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed, and the order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the petition is upheld.
ORDER
This special leave petition has been filed against the order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, made on July 2, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 6200/93. When the direct recruits had filed the special leave petition, this Court by order dated November 20, 1996 dismissed the same. Shri Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, who are now promotee U.D.C. in the U.P. Secretariat Services contends that the learned Judges have given their reasoning at pages 58 and 59 thus :
"from the aforesaid decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court, it is evident that the initial appointment of the promotees on officiating basis were not in accordance with the Rules, 1942, rather it de hors the rules. Contention of the petitioner that the quota as envisaged in Rule 21 of Rules 1942, has broken down or collapsed simply for the reason that due to certain administrative difficulties neither the selection for direct recruit nor the selection by promotion against the vacancies took place in the selection years with effect from 1971 to 1978, and hence according to the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in O.P. Singhal v. Union of India (1994) 4 SCC 450 and Direct Recruit Class II Officers Case (supra), the petitioners (promotees) should not be pushed down before the appointees from the other sources inducted into the service one later date (proposition E of the Direct Recruit Class II case (supra), appears to be misconceived. Petitioners were not at all prejudiced because of non-selection during the foresaid period for the reasons that the direct recruitment also did not take place during the aforesaid period and that the petitioners in accordance with the seniority on the post of L.D.A. were given officiating promotion on the post of U.D.A. against the vacancies existing in their quota or otherwise. In view of the aforesaid position, it cannot be said that the quota rule, as envisaged, under Rule 21 of Rules 1942 has collapsed down."
2. The above reasoning is not correct for the reason that during the relevant period neither direct recruitment nor promotions were made in accordance with the rules. As a consequence, since the promotees have been continuously officiating on the posts they are entitled to be put back to the date from which they have been continuously officiating on the ground that rule of quota has broken down. We find no force in the contention. From the judgment of the Constitution bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.1, it is now settled law that merely because temporary appointment or promotion came to be made, seniority cannot be counted from the date of officiation except when the appointment was made in accordance with rules. Though appointment is temporary, if it was made in accordance with rules and to a substantive vacancy, seniority will be counted from the date of temporary promotion. Necessarily, the quota and rota require to be maintained so as to give effect to the object envisaged under the Rules. Mere inaction cannot be made the ground to contend the that quota rule was broken down. It is not in dispute that appointments have been made in officiating capacity against the vacancies reserved for direct recruitment though no recruitment had taken place. They are not according to Rules and within quota. The Division Bench, therefore, has rightly held that the direct recruit is to be treated from the date on which he actually joined the service, though vacancies did exist prior to that. As a consequence, the promotees are also required to be fitted into the service from the date when they are entitled to fitment in accordance with quota and rota prescribed under the Rules. The Division Bench, therefore, has rightly declined to grant the relief to the petitioners.
3. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
SLP dismissed.
*******