G.P. DOVAL AND OTHERS versus THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF U.P. AND ORS.

G.P. DOVAL AND OTHERS versus THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF U.P. AND ORS.

When appointment is initially made as a stop-gap arrangement and is later confirmed/approved by the proper authority (Public Service Commission), the entire period of continuous officiation from the initial appointment, if followed by confirmation, should be counted for seniority unless there is a statutory rule to the contrary. Drawing up a seniority list ignoring such service and reckoning only from the date of selection/approval by the Commission violates Articles 14 and 16.

Parties
Petitioners: G.P. Doval and Others; Respondents: The Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 July 1984
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition / Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction Under Article 32
Outcome
Petitions allowed
Legal Topics
Seniority, Service Rules, Fundamental Rights, Equal Opportunity, Seniority Fixation, Public Service Commission
Constitutional Law Service Law Seniority Service Rules Fundamental Rights Equal Opportunity Seniority Fixation Public Service Commission

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G.P. Doval and Others

Petitioners

The Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition / Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction Under Article 32

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether past service as an ad hoc/stop-gap appointee should count towards seniority if followed by confirmation
  2. 2 Whether the denial of seniority from initial appointment date violates Articles 14 and 16
  3. 3 Whether writ petition is liable to be dismissed on grounds of laches and delay

Ratio Decidendi

When appointment is initially made as a stop-gap arrangement and is later confirmed/approved by the proper authority (Public Service Commission), the entire period of continuous officiation from the initial appointment, if followed by confirmation, should be counted for seniority unless there is a statutory rule to the contrary. Drawing up a seniority list ignoring such service and reckoning only from the date of selection/approval by the Commission violates Articles 14 and 16.

Court Disposition

Petitions allowed

Orders

  • Impugned seniority list dated March 22, 1971 quashed; respondents directed to draw up a fresh seniority list for Khandsari Inspectors based on length of continuous officiation from date of first appointment, if followed by confirmation/approval by the Public Service Commission.
  • No order as to costs.