KESHAV DEO AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
The seniority of promotee Assistant Engineers who were promoted against quota, in accordance with the applicable rules, is to be counted from the date of their continuous officiation (including ad hoc service), provided their appointment was made in accordance with the prescribed procedure and within quota, even if...
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Appellant: Kesha V Deo; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondent: Respondent No. 3 (Vishnu Sharma); Respondent: Respondent No. 4 (Vineet Kumar)
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 16 October 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated 22.1.97 of the Allahabad High Court in W.p. No. 684 of 1995
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed. Judgment of the High Court set aside. Writ Petition filed by Respondents 3 & 4 dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Seniority—promotees Vs Direct Recruits, Ad Hoc Appointment and Seniority Determination, Interpretation of U.p. Services of Engineers (building and Roads Branch), Class II Rules, 1936 (amended 1969, 1971)
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kesha V Deo
Appellant
State of U.P.
Respondent
Respondent No. 3 (Vishnu Sharma)
Respondent
Respondent No. 4 (Vineet Kumar)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated 22.1.97 of the Allahabad High Court in W.p. No. 684 of 1995
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether appellants are entitled to seniority on post of Assistant Engineers from the date they were officiating/ad hoc or from date of approval by the Commission
Ratio Decidendi
The seniority of promotee Assistant Engineers who were promoted against quota, in accordance with the applicable rules, is to be counted from the date of their continuous officiation (including ad hoc service), provided their appointment was made in accordance with the prescribed procedure and within quota, even if subsequently approved/regularised by the Commission.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed. Judgment of the High Court set aside. Writ Petition filed by Respondents 3 & 4 dismissed.
Orders
- Seniority list prepared by the Government pursuant to the directions in Saksena's and Yadav's cases, as published on 11.7.1995, upheld.
- Respondents' writ petition challenging promotees’ seniority benefit dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment