DR. KIRPA RAM MATHUR versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

DR. KIRPA RAM MATHUR versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Selection was based on merit and ranking as per Selection Committee's prescribed procedure; lack of production of individual marks at a late stage does not invalidate the merit-based process or seniority. Official records consistently acknowledged Respondent No. 4 as senior, and appellant's challenge after more than eight years was a stale claim.

Parties
Appellant: Dr. Kirpa Ram Mathur; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondent: Respondent No. 4 (not fully named in text)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Disposition After Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Seniority Determination, Regularisation of Adhoc Appointments, Merit Based Selection, Rule 7(2)
Service Law Seniority Determination Regularisation of Adhoc Appointments Merit Based Selection Rule 7(2)

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Kirpa Ram Mathur

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Respondent No. 4 (not fully named in text)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Disposition After Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether seniority determination violated Uttar Pradesh Regularisation Rules, 1979, Rule 7(2)
  2. 2 If merit basis was properly applied in inter se ranking

Ratio Decidendi

Selection was based on merit and ranking as per Selection Committee's prescribed procedure; lack of production of individual marks at a late stage does not invalidate the merit-based process or seniority. Official records consistently acknowledged Respondent No. 4 as senior, and appellant's challenge after more than eight years was a stale claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No costs awarded
  • Order of respondent, dated 10.12.1998, showing Respondent No. 4 as senior maintained