AMIT SINGH versus RAVINDRA NATH PANDEY & ORS. ETC. ETC

AMIT SINGH versus RAVINDRA NATH PANDEY & ORS. ETC. ETC

The 1992 Rules govern inter se seniority for ACOs; because both direct recruits and promotees entered the cadre in the same recruitment year 1997-98, Rules 18 and 19 of the 1992 Rules required a combined select list arranged in cyclic order (first being a promotee) according to the prescribed quota (67% direct recruits, 33% promotees), and therefore the seniority list dated 29 July 2005 which placed direct recruits above promotees is not sustainable in law.

Parties
Appellant: Amit Singh; Respondents: Ravindra Nath Pandey & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (judgment Dated 04.09.2014)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Seniority, Promotion Vs Direct Recruitment, Interpretation of Recruitment Rules, Combined Select List / Cyclic Order
Service Law Administrative Law Seniority Promotion Vs Direct Recruitment Interpretation of Recruitment Rules Combined Select List / Cyclic Order

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amit Singh

Appellant

Ravindra Nath Pandey & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (judgment Dated 04.09.2014)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether seniority between promotees and direct recruits should be determined in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992 or the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991
  2. 2 Whether the combined seniority list dated 29 July 2005 which placed direct recruits above promotees is sustainable where appointments from both sources occurred in the same recruitment year 1997-98

Ratio Decidendi

The 1992 Rules govern inter se seniority for ACOs; because both direct recruits and promotees entered the cadre in the same recruitment year 1997-98, Rules 18 and 19 of the 1992 Rules required a combined select list arranged in cyclic order (first being a promotee) according to the prescribed quota (67% direct recruits, 33% promotees), and therefore the seniority list dated 29 July 2005 which placed direct recruits above promotees is not sustainable in law.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Seniority list dated 29 July 2005 held not sustainable and set aside to the extent it gave higher seniority to direct recruits over promotees appointed in the same recruitment year 1997-98
  • Appeals dismissed