O.P. GARG AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

O.P. GARG AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Rules 22(3) and 22(4) of the 1975 rules, restricting appointment to temporary posts to only some sources and denying direct recruits their quota, are discriminatory and violate Articles 14 and 16. All 236 officers working against 236 posts as Additional District and Sessions Judges on April 5, 1975 are to be deemed existing members, and seniority is to be reckoned from continuous officiation in substantive posts available in their quota, permanent or temporary. Seniority lists must be revised in accordance with this scheme and the quota rule applied to all cadre posts.

Parties
Petitioner: O.P. Garg and Ors. etc. etc.; Respondent: State of U.P. and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 April 1991
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition / Original Jurisdiction; Final Determination
Outcome
Petition allowed; seniority list quashed; rules partly struck down
Legal Topics
Seniority, Promotion, Equality of Opportunity, Discrimination in Service Rules
Service Law Constitutional Law Seniority Promotion Equality of Opportunity Discrimination in Service Rules

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

O.P. Garg and Ors. etc. etc.

Petitioner

State of U.P. and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition / Original Jurisdiction; Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of seniority fixation rules for promotees and direct recruits in Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service
  2. 2 Whether rules 22(3) and 22(4) of the 1975 Rules are discriminatory
  3. 3 Applicability and operation of quotas among three sources of recruitment

Ratio Decidendi

Rules 22(3) and 22(4) of the 1975 rules, restricting appointment to temporary posts to only some sources and denying direct recruits their quota, are discriminatory and violate Articles 14 and 16. All 236 officers working against 236 posts as Additional District and Sessions Judges on April 5, 1975 are to be deemed existing members, and seniority is to be reckoned from continuous officiation in substantive posts available in their quota, permanent or temporary. Seniority lists must be revised in accordance with this scheme and the quota rule applied to all cadre posts.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed; seniority list quashed; rules partly struck down

Orders

  • Final seniority list dated August 25, 1988 quashed.
  • High Court directed to prepare, circulate, invite objections, and finalise fresh seniority list as per this judgment.