Holding

In exceptional circumstances where promotions ignoring seniority created a service imbalance, the Supreme Court may, under Article 142, set aside its earlier orders and direct promotions to be made retrospectively in accordance with a state‑level seniority list.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a massive promotion anomaly in the Uttar Pradesh Food and Civil Supplies Department where numerous junior clerks were promoted to Supply Inspector posts in violation of seniority rules, depriving senior employees of their rightful promotions. The petitioners argued that these promotions breached constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness, and sought regularisation based on the seniority list. Earlier Supreme Court orders (1985, 1987, 1991) and High Court orders had attempted piecemeal remedies but left the service imbalance unresolved. Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142, the Court recalled those orders, set aside all subsequent promotions made after 28‑January‑1985, and directed that promotions be made retrospectively in accordance with a newly prepared state‑level seniority list, while preserving promotions made before 1‑January‑1985 under the 1988 ad‑hoc regularisation rules. The Court also held that employees reverted under the correctional process need not refund any pecuniary benefits received while serving as Supply Inspectors.

Issues considered

The legality of promotions to Supply Inspector posts made without observing seniority norms under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the Supreme Court can set aside its own earlier orders to rectify a service anomaly under Article 142.
The effect of ad‑hoc promotions made before 1‑January‑1985 and their protection under the U.P. Regularisation of Ad‑hoc Promotions Rules, 1988.
The entitlement of reverted employees to retain pecuniary benefits received during their tenure in the higher post.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 137, s. Article 14, s. Article 142, s. Article 16, s. Article 32

Subjects

promotionseniorityservice lawconstitutional lawArticle 142administrative lawUttar PradeshFood and Civil Supplies DepartmentSupply Inspectorad‑hoc promotionreview petitioncontempt petition

Judgment

A MAHMOOD HASAN AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

JANUARY 7, 1997

B [AM. AHMADI, CJ., S.P. Bi-IARUCHA AND G.T. NANAVATJ, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950-AJticles 32, 136, 137, 142-0rders passed
by Supreme Cowt and High Cowt-Reconsideration of-Promotions to the
posts of Supply lll.lpeclOI:\" in Depmtme/lf of Food and Civil Supplies, U.P.
C made ignoring the seniolity mle.1~Some of the employees filing petitions
before High Cowt and Supreme Cowt on the groltnd that their juniors had
been promoted ignoring them--{)rdc1:;, passed by State Goi'emment, Supreme
Cowt and High Co1111 resulting in promotion of petitioners, and a large mun-
ber of senior employees remaining on lower post~W!it petitions filed by
D senior employees claiming promotion jiwn the date any of their juniors got
promotio11-Review petitions filed by State Govenu>ient praying for review of
earlier orde1:y passed by this Cowt-Held, i11 the exceptio11al situation of the
case,to restore the balance, the orders dated 28.1.1985, 4.12.1987 a11d
1.10.1991 passed by Sltpreme Cowt are recalled a11d all the orders passed
by the High Cowt in the matter after 28.1.1985 as well as all orders of promo-
E lions made by the State Govemme11t dwi11g the period are set aside:--State
Govemmellt is directed to make promotions i11 accordance with relevant ntles
and no1ms a11d accordi11g to tlie State Se11iority List with retrospective effect.

Service Law.

F U.P. Food a11d Civil Supplies (Supply Branch) Mi11iste1ial Se1vice
Rltles, 1979.

Promotion to the posts of Supply Inspect01:<r-Promotio11s made
proFisi01zally or othe1wise, witholtt adl1C1ing to mies and se11io1ity 1101111~
G Heid, all such promotees as well as those protected by vwious orders of
Supreme Cowt and High Cowt would have to be reve1ted, and promotions
would bemade afresh in accordance with relevant mies and 1101ms according
to State Se11io1ity List with retrospective effect.

In the Department of Fond and Civil Supplies, Government of Uttar
·H Pradesh, appointments to the posts of Supply Inspectors were made by
88
)

M. HASAN v. STATE 89
,•.
direct recruitment, and by promotion of the clerical staff on the basis of A
divisional seniority, in the ratio of 1:1. However, during the procurement
seasons promotions from clerical staff were made to the post of Supply
Inspectors on ad hoc basis, without following the seniority norms. Though
the promotions were to last till the end of the season, the promotees
managed to continue on the said posts. The clerical staff seeking promo-
tion to the posts of Supply Inspectors filed writ petitions before the
B
Allahabad High Court and special leave petitions before this"'Court on the
ground that a large number of junior persons had been promoted as
Supply Inspectors in violation of petitioners' right to seniority.

This Court by an order dated 28.1.1985 passed in S.L.P. No. 3491 of c
1984 directed by way of an interim measure to promote the claimants after
exhausting the seniority list dated 1.4.1976. On 4.12.1987 the Court passed
the final order taking a sympathetic view for those who had been working
as Supply Inspectors for quite some time and allowed them to continue as
such. But the Court made it clear that such continuation in the higher post
conld not confer any seniority. By another order dated 1.10.1991 this Court
D
directed to promote 15 petitioners to the posts of' Supply Inspectors with
effect from the date their juniors had been so promoted. The High Court
also in Writ Petition No. 4063 of 1986, by an order dated 5.9.1988 directed
the State Government to promote the petitioners therein.
E
The orders passed by the State Government, the High Court and this
Court gave rise to a large number of writ petitions before this Court. The
case of the petitioners in these writ petitions was that by virtue of the
various orders of the State Government, the High Court and the orders
dated 28.1.1985, 4.12.1987 and 1.10.1991 passell by this Court, a large F
number of employees junior to these petitioner.s were promoted and were
continuing on senior posts of Supply Inspectors, while the petitioners
being seniors and with much more experience were working on lower posts.
The petitioners prayed for promotion in accordance with tile seniority list.
Some of the employees directed to be promoted tiled ;Contempt petition
alleging non-compliance of orders of the Court. The State of U.P. filed G
review petitions praying for review of orders dated 4.12.1987 and 1.10.1991
..;
passed by this Court.
,.,
'
This Court, in order to remove the anomalies, directed the State
Government on 19.2.1993 that before regularisation of promotions to be H

1
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 1 S.C.R.

A made oa ~he basis of State level seniority, some reversions would be caused
and, therefore, the employees likely to be reverted should be given an
opportunity of hearing before this Court. Consec1nently, on the pnblic
notice issued by the Government, applications were filed by the employees
who had been promoted for the reason that their juniors had got promo-
tions. They did not oppose the eventual reversion but claimed that they be
B promoted regularly with effect from the date of promotion of any one of
their juntors.

Disposing of the matters, this Court

C HELD : 1.1. In the exceptional situation that hali arisen because of
the number of officials seeking promotion on the ground that their juniors
have been promoted, being almost as large as the total strength of the
promotional cadre, the proper course would be that the juniors should
vacate and make room for their senior colleagues. To restore the balance,
D the orders dated 28.1.1985, 4.12.1987 and 1.10.1991 are recalled, and all
orders of the High Court passed in the matter after 28.1.1985 as well ;c;
all orders for promotion made by the State Government during this
period, are set.aside. It is directed that promotions be made, keeping in
view all relevant rules and norms, witli retrospective effect from the date
a vacancy arises for an incumbent according to the State Level Seniority
E List now prepared and submitted to the Court. [100-D)

1.2. The employees provisionally promoted as Supply Inspectors for
seasonal requirement or otherwise, as well as those promoted without
adhering to the seniority list for one reason or the other, even though •,
F protected by various orders of this Court and the High Court, would have
to be reverted. However, those promoted prior to 1.1.1985 and protected
by the U.P. Regularisa~ion of Ad hoc Promotions (on posts within the
purview of PSC) Rules, 1988 need not be disturbed. Those promoted with
reti·ospective effect will ye entitled to all pecuniary benefits of such promo-
tions. However, those who will have to step down on account of this
G correctional process need not refund the pecuniary or other benefit en-
joyed by them for they had actually worked as Supply Inspectors during
that period. [100-E-F]

Sheo Dutt Shanna v. State of U.P. & Others, [1984) Supp. SCC 190,
H referred to.
)
M. HASAN v. STATE [AHMADI, CT.] 91

Cl VIL ORIGINAL .JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 1131 of A
1991 Etc. Etc.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indi;I.

B.K. Mehta, D.K. Garg, A.K. Goel, R.C. Kaushik, S.A Syed, Arvind
Kumar, Mrs. Laxmi Arvind, Indeevar Goodwill, Brij Bhushan, P.K. Jain, B
E.C. Agrawala, M.C. Dhingra, S.N. Jha, Anis Subrawardy, S. Kulshreshtha,
Ms. Sandhya Goswami, S.K. Mehta, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, .Ms. Lalita Kohli,
Manoj Swarup, Advs. for M/s. Manoj Swarup & Co., Advs. and Devendra
Singh Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
AHMADI, CJ. Leave granted in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 8726 of 1992.

These writ petitions, with fl CwH Appeal, a Contempt Petition and a
review petition have arisen out of several orders passed by this Court as
well as by the High Court of Allahabad, coupled with certain acts and D
omissions on the part of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The main dispute
)
relates to the seniority and promotion of employees in the clerical cadre
of the Food and Civil Supplies Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
1 The Uttar Pradesh Food and Civil Supply Department consists of 3 wings,
viz., Marketing Wing, Supply Wing and Weights and Measures Wing. The
he'\d of all the three wings is the Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies. E
The channels of promotion in the Marketing Wing and in the Supply Wing
from the lower rank to the higher rank are as under :'

Marketing Wing Supply! Wing
I .
Marketing Inspector Supply Inspector F
I
Accountant/Head Clerk
1
Accountant/Head Clerk
.I
Semor Clear
1
Sr. Accounts Clerk

Clerk j Clerk
1
G
Appointment to the post of Marketing Inspectors and Supply Inspec-
tors are made from two sources : (i) by direct recruitment; and (ii) by
-t
promotion from the lower cadres mentioned above, in the ratio of 1:1.

To put the facts chronologically, it would be proper to refer to an H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R.

A order of this Court dated 20.1.1984 in a batch of special leave petitions
from the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated
September 29, 1983 reported as Shea Dutt Shanna v. State of U.P. & OthCJ~",
f1984] Supp. sec 190. The petitioners in that group of petitions were I

promotces to the cadre of Marketing Inspectors. Although a seniority list
B was proposed to be prepared, promotions to the rank of Marketing Inspec-
tors were occasionally made on temporary or on ad hoc basis during the
procurement seasons, and reversions at the end of such seasons followed
as a matter of course. As a large number of Marketing Inspectors were
sought to be reverted in this process, they filed a Civil Miscellaneous Writ
No. 6763 of 1983 in the High Court of Allahabad and obtained an interim
C stay from the vacation Judge and thus continued to function under Court
orders as Marketing Inspectors. The Writ Petition was subsequently dis-
missed by a J?ivision Bench of the High Court which held that the promo-
tions were ad hoc and upto and inclusive of August 31, 1983 and therefore,
they had no right to the post of Marketing Inspector. The High Court,
D however, ordered that those of the promotees who could be accommodated
within the 50% quota for them in the regular posts, subject to reservations
for Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes, should be so accommodated.
The State of Uttar Pradesh, submitted before this Court in appeal that a
seniority list of clerical staff dated 10.1.1983 would be treated as the final
seniority list and would be the basis for promotion to the regular post of
E Marketing Inspectors and that promotions for seasonal requirements
would be made on ad hoc basis. This Court directed, vide order dated
20.1.1984, that such seasoHal promotions must be made for specific terms
and outside the quota of 50%. On behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, it
was also submitted that individual claims of any error in the seniority list
F would be examined and the consequence. reached on such examination
would be given effect to.
-.
The present proceedings have been initiated on behalf of the clerical
staff of the Supply Wing, seeking promotion to the posts of Supply Inspec-
tors. They allege that the State of Uttar Pradesh failed to give effect to the
G seniority list of the clerks and many of them had to approach the High
Court and this Court for promotion to the posts of Supply Inspectors as
the promotions to the post of Supply Inspectors were made without follow-
ing the seniority list. One such order of the High Court was challenged by
way of special leave petition No.3491/84 entitled Saroj Kumar Tyagi and
H Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others on the ground that about 100
M. HASANv. STATE[AHMADT, CJ.] 93

junior persons had been promoted as Supply Inspectors in violation of the A
petitioners' right to seniority. By an order dated 28.1.1985, this Court
directed by way of an interim measure that promotions may be made of
those clamouring for promotion after exhausting the list of Head Clerks
dated April 1, 1976 and thereafter accommodating such of the petitioners
as could be accommodated. The final judgment in the matter was, however,
made on 4.12.1987. A sympathetic view was taken for those who had been
B
working as Supply Inspectors for quite some time, although, perhaps, they
would not have been entitled to such promotion according to seniority
excepting for two petitioners therein namely Saroj Kumar and Prabhu
Dayal who were entitled to promotion on the basis of their seniority. They
all were allowed to continue as Inspectors of supply not on the basis of C
their seniority but on the sole consideration that they had been continuing
in the promotional post for quite a long period and it would be inap-
propriate to revert them. However, this Court clarified that such continua-
tion in the higher post would not confer any seniority.

Simultaneously, litigation was also orr in the High Court for promo-
D
tion to the post of Senior Accounts Clerk from that of Clerk and to the
post of Supply Inspector from that of Head Clerk/Accountant. The High
Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4063 ef 1986 entitled Ram
Dayal & Ors. v. State of U.P. passed an order dated 5-9-1988 directing the
State of U.P. to take steps to promote the petitioners before the High E
Court as Supply Inspectors within a period of four weeks from the date of
production of certified copy of that order before the appropriate authority.

Still others filed a writ petition before this Court, bein~ Writ Petition
No.1128 of 1989 and Writ Petition No. 490 of 1990 and by an order dated F
1st October, 1991, this Court directed to promote 15 of the petitioners to
the post of Supply Inspectors. The contention of the petitioners in the said
two petitions was that certain promotions to the post of Supply Inspectors
had been made in violation of the rule of seniority and the petitioners
therein had been adversely affected. By the onder dated 1.10.91, this Court
directed that the petitioners therein - 15 clerks be promoted w.e.f. the date G
on which the juniors were promoted to the next higher posts of Supply
Inspectors with all benefits accruing to them, if necessary, by creating
supernumerary posts.

On 23rd October, 1990, in a writ petition filed by the Association of H
94. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] l S.C.R.

A Head Clerks/Accountants this Court directed the State Government to ...
consider the case of the workmen concerned in that writ petition in the
light of the relevant rules and orders and to accord them whatever relief
\Vas available according to law.

B Soon thereafter the writ petition No.1131 of 1991 was filed by Mah-
mood Hasan and others. The other petitions were also filed in quick
succession. The case of Mahmood Hasan may be treated to be the prin-.
cipal case and the records of this case may be adverted to for the purpose
of the facts. Mahmood Hasan and others in this writ petition have given
lists of Supply Clerks who were promoted pursuant to the orders of this
C Court on 1.10.1991, as well as those promoted by the order dated 4.12.1987,
and those by {)rder of the High Court dated 5.9.1988. All the three lists
also show the respective date of appointment of each clerk. The list of
petitioners along with the dates of their initial appointments, their positions
in the seniority list and the names of the District Supply Offices they
D respectively belong to, have been given in the form of a table. The purpose
of the petitioners is to show that the present petitioners were .senior to 1

those who obtained promotion under various orders of this Court and the
High Court. It may be clarified here, of course, that all the petitioners
herein are not 'e11bloc senior to all those who have obtained promotion by
various orders of this Court and the High Court. The situation is .that
· E petitioners are senior to one or other ofthose who already stand promoted
by those orders. Apart from those promoted under judicial orders, many
have been promoted otherwise by orders of the State Government. Accord-
ing to the petitioners, some of these promotions were also made without
following the seniority rule. A list of 153 such persons who were promoted
F to the detriment of the petitioners herein, has also been submitted by the
petitioners. The petitioners further add that the eight employees who were
promoted vide order dated 4.12.1987 came in service by virtue of an illegal
order appointing them as Senior Accounts Clerk/Accounts Clerk and their
appointments were declared illegal by the State Government itself, vide
order dated 21.3.1980 bearing No.1300/29.2.88/76(T.C.). However, this
G order was recalled by the Government vide its letter No.1929/29.2.88/76
T.C. dated 1.5.80 Supp. Meanwhile, a State level seniority list was issued
by the Commis,sioner of Food & Civil Supplies, Lucknow on 16.6.1989. The
petitioners therein allege that they came to know from such list that 153
persons junior to them listed in Annexure E had been promoted. The
H petiti?ners herein'. have prayed for promotion in accordance with the
)
M. HASAN v. STATE [AHMADI, CJ.] 95

·1 semority list to the post. of Supply Inspectors and claimed the same A
treatment which had been given to their colleagues by the different orders
of the High Court and this Court mentioned above.

Writ Petition bearing No. 329 of 1992 entitled K.K. Singh & Am: v.
State of U.P. & Ors. is very similar to that of Mahmood Hasan and others.
The petitioners in this writ petition also claim to be senior to those B
promoted under various orders mentioned above. The petitioners in the
W.P. No.512/92 C'ntitled P.K. Bhatnagar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., W.P.
No.266192 entitled Ranjit Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., W.P. ·
No.263/92 entitled P.C. Jain & Ors. v. State of U.P: & Ors. W.P. No. 578/92
entitled Harish Chandra Dubey & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., W.P. No. C
43/92 entitled Surendera Gupta & Ors. v. State 'of U.P. & Ors., W.P. No.
368/92 entitled Ram Briksh Prasad & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., W.P. No.
851/92 entitled Girish Chandra Srivastava & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
W.P. No.571/92 entitled Vinod Kumar Srivastava & Ors. v. State of U.P. &
Ors., W.P. No.294/92 entitled· Har Nara.in Gupta & Ors. v. State of U.P. & D
Ors., W.P. No.237/92 entitled Merahi Singh & Ors .. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
W.P. No.582/92 entitled Radha Shanna & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., W.P.
No.106/92 entitled Harichandpal & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. as well as
that of W.P. No.220/93 entitled Ashahad Mabud Hussain v. State of U.P. &
Ors. are on similar facts.
E
The Writ Petition No.218/93 is filed by Shri Dalip Kumar Roy & Ors.
against the State of U.P. & Ors. The petitioners Dalip Kumar Roy &·others
had approached the High Court of Allahabad by filing·CMP N-0. 34057 of
1991 in which the Hig)i. Court vide an order dated 16.U.1991 directed that
in view of the order of this Court dated·l.10.1990 in Writ Petition (Civil) F
No.1128/89 and W.P. No.490/90, the case of the petitioners therein be
considered within 15 days to maintain uniformity amongst employees. The
petitioners filed a contempt ·petition alleging failure on the part of the
Government to comply with the order. Later, by an order dated 18.7.1992,
the petitioners' representation for promotion to the post of Supply Inspec-
tors was rejected. The petitioners have challenged the order dated G
18.7.1992 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since they had been
deprived of promotion despite the fact that their juniors had been
promoted.

Contempt Petition No. 373 of 1991 is by an Association of Head H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R.

A Clerks/Accountants working in Food and Civil Supplies Department pray-
ing for initiating contempt proceedings against the State of Uttar Pradesh
for not complying with the order of this Court dated 23rd October, 1990
in Writ Petition No. 152/89 filed by the said Association. By an order dated
23rd October, 1990, this Court had directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to
consider the case of all the concerned workmen in the light of relevant
B
rules and orders and to accord whatever relief was available to them under
law. The facts alleged herein are the same as those in the case of Mahmood
Hasan.

The Writ Petition No. 309 of 1993 by Shri Gyan Chand is on its
C individual facts. His case is that he was promoted to the post of Supply
Inspector w.e.f. 5.11.1973 but since he was not relieved from his post of
Clerk, he could not join the promotional post and his promotion was
cancelled vide G.O.No.45 of 1974 and was again subsequently promoted
on 4.11.1986. His main prayer is that his seniority in the cadre of Supply
D Inspector be treated to be the same as his seniority in the cadre of Clerks.

The petitioners in W.P. No.522/92 entitled Bikram Singh Rawat &
Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., except petitioner No. 2, have. !:";;;;,.,working as
Supply Inspectors for quite sometime. Their grievance is that many juniors
have since been regularised as Supply Inspectors under the orders of this
E Court and High Court while they (petitioners) h~.ve not yet been
regularised.

The State of U.P. has come up with the Review Petition, being No.
820 of 1994 for recalling the orders dated 4.12.1987 and 1.10.1991. These
p two orders have caused in a large number of Clerks in the Food & Civil
Supplies Department being promoted as Supply Inspectors in violatian of
the rules of seniority as well as in excess of the posts, thereby causing
serious administrative difficulties.

The State of U.P. has also filed a Special Leave Petition, being No.
G 8726 of 1992, assailing the order dated 16.11.1991 of the High Court of
Allahabad whereby the High Court in view of the order of this Court in
Writ Petition No. 1128 of 1989 directed the State of U.P. to consider the
case of the respondents (writ petitioners) for promotion to the post of
Supply Inspectors within a period of 15 days from the date of presentation
H of the certified copy for maintaining uniformity with other employees.
M. HASAN v. STATE [AHMADI, CJ.] 97

On behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh certain anomalies in the A
promation of Clerks/Head Clerks to the post of Supply Inspectors have
been admitted. However, the position taken by the petitioners is denied on
the ground that instead of a State level seniority, the U.P. Food and Civil
Supplies (Supply Branch) Ministerial Service Rules, 1979 require seniority
lists to be drawn up in respect of each category of posts in the service to B
be maintained separately for each division. The State of U.P., however,
does not maintain that the promotions so far made strictly adhere to even
the divisional senicrity list. It is submitted in the counter-affidavit that some
Clerks who were illegally promoted to the post of Supply Inspectors had
to be continued under the orders of this Court as they had worked for some
time even though the State Government passed an order cancelling promo- C
tions illegally made by the District Magistrate. It is further submitted that
on 1.10.1991 when this Court made the order to continue the promotees
in the rank of Supply Inspectors, the Advocate for the State did not appear
to explain the position. It is also submitted that as on the date of the
counter-affidavit, there were 99 vacancies in the rank of Supply Inspectors D
of which 50% could be filled by promotion and if all the petitioners (about
400) are promoted for' the reason that their juniors had already been
promoted, it will lead to administrative difficulties, weaken the cadre of
Supply Inspectors and would be unjust to the State. Explaining the position
regarding those protected by the order dated 4.12.1987, the State submits
that 15 persons as mentioned in the writ petition had been recruited E
contrary to rules and were so declared vide letter dated 21.3.1980 and
certain promotions made by the District Magistrate on 4.8.1982 were also
similarly declared illegal on 27.12.1983. However, vide order dated
4.12.1987, this Court regularised their promotion on practical considera-
tions.
F
It will not be out of place to mention here that 147 writ petitions by
490 employees of the Food & Civil Supply Department of U.P. have been
filed and the High Court has made several interim directions in these writ
petitions giving benefits of interim promotions. The State level provisional
seniority list circulated in 1989 was cancelled on 22.8.1991. It is submitted G
by the State of U.P. that the 1979 Rules required seniority lists to be
maintained only division-wise and so the list issued in 1989 was not accord-
+ ing to the Rules. However, the State of U .I'. has since framed another State
level seniority list and has sought permission to revert all those promoted
out of turn. By an interim application, being I.A. No. 14 of 1994 in writ H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 1 S.C.R.

A petition No. 1131 of 1991, the State of U.P. has applied for vacating all
those orders of the High Court. ,

A Division-wise seniority list is submitted by the State. The
petitioners in W.P. No.1131/91 lost no time to point out that even according
to the Divisional-wise seniority list, the promotions made could not be
B jtL<ilified. In fact, the situation is quite apparently faulty and a remedial
measure is required to be devised.

It became apparent from the conflicting claims filed by the
petitioners that in order to place the promotion of the Supply Clerks/Head
C ':Jerks in the post of Supply Inspectors, those provisionally promoted for
seasonal requirement or otherwise, as well as those promoted without
adhering to the seniority list for one reason or the other, even though
protected by various orders of this Court and the High Court would have
to be reverted and promotions inade afresh on the basis of the inter se
D seniority of the members of the said cadre. By an order dated 19.2..1993, it
was directed that before any order for regularisation of promotion is made
on the basis of a state level seniority, some reversions may be caused and
it wouW be desi.rable that those likely to be reverter! have an opportunity
to present-their viewpoint before this Court. We duected that the State of
Uttar Pradesh should h;ive public notices issued regarding the possibility
E of reversion taking place so that those likely to be reverted may put forWard
their views, In response to such publie notice, some emplQyees have filed
applications for interventrons/impleadment/affidavits. It is not necessary to
descri~e- their responses to the notices in detail. Suffice it to say that most
of the applications are filed by those who- have benefited by one order or
F the other in seuring promotions for the reason their juniors were promoted.
They, in fact, do not oppose the proposed or possible reversion but claim
that they be promoted regularly .at least w.e.f. the date anyone junior to
them is promoted. Two of the responses are not against the apprehended
reversions but against the seniority list prepared by the State of U .P, during
the course of present proceedings.
G
On 161U993, the State of U.P. informed us that a provisional
seniority list had been prepared and objections thereto had been invited.
We directed that the Commissioner of Food & Civil Supplies will put on +
notice board a notice to the effect that this Court has directed that the
H objections should be filed within four weeks and that if they are not filed
)
M. HASANv. STATE [AHMADI, CJ.) 99

within that period, ·they will not he entertained. It was suggested that a A
public notice may also be issued in the press. A final state-wise seniority
list of persons appointee! after 1.4.1964 was submitted by the Additional
Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies, U.P. on 21st April, 1994. In the
accompanying affidavit, it was submitted ·that the list was finalised after
hearing about 512 objections and that the State of U.P. will adopt this list B
for the purpose of promotion to the post of Supply Inspectors. It was
further submitted on behalf of the State that those granted promotion on
ad hoc basis prior to 1.l.1985 were governed by the U.P. Regularisation of
Ad hoc Promotions (all posts within the purview of PSC) Rules, 1988 and
certain ad hoc promotees were regularised thereunder. The State of U .P.
asked for permission to revert all Supply Inspectors promoted after C
1.1.1985 and to make promotions on the basis of seniority list according to
rules.

We may recall that the State of U.P. also filed a petition for review
of the orders dated 4.12.1987 and 1.10.1991, being Review Petition No. 820 D
of 1994. The respondents contended in the Review Petition that the respon-
dents tluorein who were given ad hoc promotion in violation of the statutory
rules and whose promotions had been cancelled vide order dated
27.1)..1983, challenged the cancellation order in the High Court and on
such challe~ge having failed, filed Civil Appeal No. 329 of !985, Civil
Appeal No. 116 of 1986 and Civil Appeal No. 328 of 1985 in which .the E
order dated <U2.1987 was passed. Subsequently, Writ Petition No.1128 of
1989 was filed' in which the order dated 1.10.1991 was passed. n is con-
tended on behalf of the State in the petition for review that in view of the
T two orders dated 4.12.1987 and 1.10.1991, a large number of Clerks had
filed writ petitions before this Court and the High Court claiming promo- F
tion on the ground that they were senior to the persons granted promotion,
that the earlier Review Petition filed against the order dated 1.10.1991
being Review Petition No. 292 of 1992 was dismissed on 18.2.1992 as the ·
order dated 4.12.1987 was still in operation and that the present petition
was being filed for review of both the orders dated 4.12.1987 and 1.10.1991
so that the entire matter could be heard de novo. The contention is that G
unless this Court overcomes the inhibition of the said earlier orders com-
plete justice cannot be done and the undeserved benefit reaped by some
in preferei;ice to their seniors would continue to them at the cost of their
seniors. The confusion and anomaly caused by the previous orders has
brought about a serious imbalance in the service, inasmuch as, juniors are H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R.
,.
A manning the higher posts without sufficient experience whereas seniors
with sufficient experience are required to work at lower levels when they
should be manning the higher posts. It is, therefore, contended that the
Court should utilise its extra-ordinary powers under Article 142 to undo
the injustice and repair the imbalance caused by its earlier orders. Unless
the situation arising under the earlier orders is repaired, the imbalance in
B
the cadre will continue and the grievance of the seniors who have been
denied promotion because the promotional slots are occupied by their
juniors, will survive and so wiH the brooding sense of injustice continue to
adversely affect the functioning of the department. We see considerable
substance in this line of reasoning.
c
The exceptional situation has arisen because the number of officials
seeking promotion on the ground that their juniors have been promoted is
almost as large as the total strength of the promotional cadre. The proper
course in such a situation is for the juniors to vacate and to make room for
D their senior colleagues. To restore the balance it is necessary to recall the
orders dated 28.1.1985, 4.12.1987 and 1.10.1991 and to set aside all orders
of the High Court passed in the matter after 28.1.1985 as well as all orders
for promotion made by the State Government during this period and to
direct that promotions be made, keeping in view all relevant rules and
norms, with retrospective effect from the date a vacancy arises for an
E incumbent according to the State Level Seniority List now prepared and
submitted to the Court. However, those promoted prior to 1.1.1985 and
protected by the U.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Promotions (on posts
within the purview of PSC) Rules, 1988 need not be disturbed. It is needless
to say that those promoted with retrospective effect will be entitled to all
pecuniary benefits of such promotion. However, those who will have to step
F
down on account of this correctional process need not refund the pecuniary
or other benefit enjoyed by them for they had actually worked as Supply
Inspectors during that period. We order accordingly. All the writ petitions,
the appeal, the interim application, the review petition and the contempt
petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms.
G
The State Government will complete the entire exercise within a
period af six months from today, taking the State Level Seniority List as
final and conclusive for that purpose. There will be no order as lo costs.

R.P. Petitions disposed of.