Holding

Seniority cannot be counted from the date of temporary appointment unless the appointment is made in accordance with the Rules; promotees must be fitted into service from the date they become entitled under the quota and rota, and the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, promotee Upper Division Clerks in the Uttar Pradesh Secretariat Service, challenged their appointment on an officiating basis against vacancies reserved for direct recruitment, arguing that they should be granted seniority from the date they began officiating. They contended that the quota provision under Rule 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Secretariat Service Rules, 1942, had collapsed due to the failure to conduct direct recruitment or promotions during 1971‑1978. The Division Bench held that such temporary appointments were not made in accordance with the Rules and therefore seniority could not be counted from the date of officiation, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra. The Court affirmed that a direct recruit’s seniority is measured from the date he actually joins the service, and promotees must be fitted into the service only from the date they become entitled under the quota and rota prescribed by the Rules. Consequently, the petitioners were not entitled to any relief and the special leave petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether seniority of promotees appointed on an officiating basis against direct recruitment vacancies can be counted from the date of officiation.
Whether the quota provision under Rule 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Secretariat Service Rules, 1942, collapsed due to non‑conduct of direct recruitment and promotions.
Whether the Supreme Court precedent in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra applies to the present facts.

Subjects

senioritypromotiondirect recruitmentquotaUttar Pradesh Secretariat Servicetemporary appointmentRule 21special leave petition

Judgment

A U.P. SECRETARIAT U.D.A. ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS
JOINT SECRETARY, G.C. SRIVASTAVA AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

JANUARY 27, 1997
B
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]

S e1vice Law :

C U.P. Secretariat Services--Upper Division Clerk-!11ter-se seni01ity be-
twee11 direct recntits and promotees-Held: Appointme11ts made in officiating
capacity against vaca11cies reserved for direct recntitment though no direct
recntitment had take11 place-He11ce not according to Rules a11d within
quoter-Direct recntit to be treated as such from date 011 which he actually
joins the service though vacancies did exist prior to that-Consequently
D promotees also •equired to be fitted into the sovice from the date when they
are entitled to fitment in accorda11ce with quota a11d rota presclibed under the
Rules.

Direct Rt?crnit Class II Enginee1ing Officers' Association v. State of
E Maharashtra & Ors., [1990] 2 sec 715, followed.
~·

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICT-ION : Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 25086 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.7.96 of the Allahabad High
Court in W.P. No. 6200 of 1993.
F
Gopal Subramaniam, R.N. Keshwani and Santosh Kumar for the
Petitioners.

AK.. Srivastava for the Respondents.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

This ·special leave petition has been filed against the order of the
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, made on July 2, 1996 in Writ
Petition No. 6200/93. When the direct recruits had filed the special leave
H petition, this Court by order dated November 20, 1996 dismissed the same.
586
U.P. SECRETARIAT U.D.A. ASSON. v. STATE 587

~ Shri Gopal Subramaniam, learned. senior counsel for the petitioners, who A
are now promotee U.D.C. in the U.P. Secretariat Services contends that
the learned Judges have given their reasoning at pages 58 and 59 thus :
...
"from the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is
evident that the initial appointment of the promotees on officiating B
ba;;is were not in accordance with the Rules, 1942, rather it de hors
the rules. Contention of the petitioner that the quota as envisaged
in Rule 21 of Rules 1942, has broken_down or collapsed simply for
the reason that due to certain administrative difficulties neither
the selection for direct recruit nor the selection by promotion
•• against the vacancies took place in the selection years with effect c
from 1971 to 1978, and hence according to the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in O.P. Singh v. Union of India, [1994] 4 SCC 450
and Direct Recrnit Class II Officers' Case (supra), the petitioners
(promotees) ·should not be pushed down before the appointees
from the other sources inducted into the service one later date D
(proposition E of the Direct Recrnit Class II case (supra), appears
to be misconceived. Petitioners were not at all prejudiced because
of non-selection during the aforesaid period for the reasons that
the direct recruitment also did not take place during the aforesaid
period and that the petitioners in accordance with the seniority on
the post of L.D .A. were given officiating promotion on the post of
U .D .A. against the vacancies existing in their quota or otherwise.
In view of the aforesaid position, it cannot be said that the quota
rule, as envisaged, under Rule 21 of Rules 1942 has collapsed
down."
F
The above reasoning is not correct for the n~ason that during the
relevant. period neither direct recruitment nor promotions were made in
accordance with the rules. As a consequence, since the promotees have
been continuously officiating on the posts they are entitled to be put back
to the date from which they have been continuously officiating on the G
ground that rule of quota has broken down. We find no force in the
contention. From the judgment of the Constitution bench of this Coutt in
Direct Recrnit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., (1990] 2 SCC 715, it is now settled law that merely
because temporary appointment or promotion came to be made, seniority
cannot be counted from the date of officiation except when the appoint - H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R.

A ment was made in accordance with rules. Though appointment is tem- +-
porary, if it was made in accordance with rules and to a substantive

B
vacancy, seniority will be counted from the date of temporary promotion.
Necessarily, the quota and rota required to be maintained so as to give
effect to the object envisaged under the Rules. Mere inaction cannot be
made the ground to contend that the quota rule was broken down. It is not
-
in dispute that appointments have been made in officiating capacity against
the vacancies reserved for direct recruitment though no recruitment had
taken place. They are not according to Rules and within quota. The ,.
Division Bench, therefore, rightly held that the direct recruit is to be
treated from the date on which he actually joined the service, though ~

c vacancies did exist prior to that. As a consequence, the promotees are also
required to be fitted into the service from the date when they are entitled
to fitment in accordance with quota and rota prescribed under Rules. The
Division Bench, therefore, ,has rightly declined to grant the relief to the
petitioners.
D The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. .,..
G.N. Petition dismissed.

0