SIRAJ AHMAD versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

SIRAJ AHMAD versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

The appellant's appointment, lacking PSC concurrence, was irregular not illegal, and since he was selected through proper procedure, served uninterruptedly, possessed the requisite qualification, and juniors were promoted, he is entitled to promotion and consequential benefits from the date his juniors were promoted.

Parties
Appellant: Siraj Ahmad; Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Writ Petition by Allahabad High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Promotion, Regularisation, Irregular Appointment Vs Illegal Appointment, Seniority
Service Law Promotion Regularisation Irregular Appointment Vs Illegal Appointment Seniority

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siraj Ahmad

Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Writ Petition by Allahabad High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant is entitled to promotion to Assistant Engineer under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 of the U.P. Development Authorities Centralised Service Rules, 1985.
  2. 2 Whether services rendered in ad hoc appointment lacking PSC concurrence are to be treated as irregular or illegal for purposes of promotion and seniority.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's appointment, lacking PSC concurrence, was irregular not illegal, and since he was selected through proper procedure, served uninterruptedly, possessed the requisite qualification, and juniors were promoted, he is entitled to promotion and consequential benefits from the date his juniors were promoted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and Order of Allahabad High Court dated 11.09.2017 quashed and set aside.
  • Order of Respondent No. 1 dated 16.04.2015 quashed and set aside.