STATE OF U.P., ETC. versus RAFIQUDDIN & ORS. ETC.

STATE OF U.P., ETC. versus RAFIQUDDIN & ORS. ETC.

Appointments of the 'unplaced candidates' of the 1970 examination were made in violation of the rules, as they did not secure the minimum qualifying viva voce marks stipulated by the Commission under Rule 19. Accordingly, their appointments cannot confer on them seniority over those appointed in accordance with the rules. The proper seniority is to be assigned at the bottom of the 1972 candidates' list.

Parties
Appellant: State of Uttar Pradesh; Respondents: Rafiquddin and Others; Appellants: Sushil Kumar Srivastava and Others; Appellants: D.P. Shukla and Others; Petitioner: Chandra Prakash Agarwal; Petitioner: Sushil Chand Srivastava; Petitioner: R.P. Lavaniya; Petitioners: P.N. Parasher and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 November 1987
Procedural Posture
Appeals and Writ Petitions / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeals of State of U.P. and Sushil Kumar Srivastava and others allowed; appeal of D.P. Shukla and others and writ petitions of Chandra Prakash Agarwal and R.P. Lavaniya dismissed; writ petition of Sushil Chand Srivastava and transferred case of P.N. Parasher and others allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Seniority Determination, Appointment Procedures, Judicial Service Recruitment, Competitive Examination Rules
Service Law Seniority Determination Appointment Procedures Judicial Service Recruitment Competitive Examination 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Uttar Pradesh

Appellant

Rafiquddin and Others

Respondents

Sushil Kumar Srivastava and Others

Appellants

D.P. Shukla and Others

Appellants

Chandra Prakash Agarwal

Petitioner

Sushil Chand Srivastava

Petitioner

R.P. Lavaniya

Petitioner

P.N. Parasher and Others

Petitioners

Procedural Posture

Appeals and Writ Petitions / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'unplaced candidates' of the 1970 examination are entitled to seniority over candidates of the 1972 examination.
  2. 2 Whether appointments made in violation of minimum marks prescribed for viva voce are valid under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951.
  3. 3 Whether seniority should be determined by year of examination or date of appointment.

Ratio Decidendi

Appointments of the 'unplaced candidates' of the 1970 examination were made in violation of the rules, as they did not secure the minimum qualifying viva voce marks stipulated by the Commission under Rule 19. Accordingly, their appointments cannot confer on them seniority over those appointed in accordance with the rules. The proper seniority is to be assigned at the bottom of the 1972 candidates' list.

Court Disposition

Appeals of State of U.P. and Sushil Kumar Srivastava and others allowed; appeal of D.P. Shukla and others and writ petitions of Chandra Prakash Agarwal and R.P. Lavaniya dismissed; writ petition of Sushil Chand Srivastava and transferred case of P.N. Parasher and others allowed in part.

Orders

  • Judgment of High Court in favour of 'unplaced candidates' set aside.
  • High Court and State Government to determine the seniority of the 21 'unplaced candidates' at the bottom of the 1972 candidates' list.