1

Supplementary Report in continuation of Final SeniorityReport dated 23.09.2015

1. In furtherance of our exercise of determination of vacancies

and   seniority   of   HJS   upto   Recruitment   1998­2000   and   in

continuation thereof, we determined vacancies and seniority of the

officers including those recruited in 2007 and 2009 Recruitment

and submitted our report on 23.09.2015. It was considered by Full

Court in its meeting dated 01.12.2015. Since there was alteration

in  inter   se  seniority   of   some  of   the  officers   shown   in   tentative

seniority  list,  Court took the view that one more opportunity of

objection/ hearing be afforded to all concerned so that no one may

have any grievance that before finalizing his/her seniority, he/ she

did not get an opportunity of placing its point of view before the

Court.   In  view thereof,  Final  Seniority Report  dated 23.09.2015

(hereinafter referred to as the “FSR 2015”)    was circulated to all

concerned alongwith its enclosures by uploading on official website

of High Court. The concerned District Judges were also requested

to   inform   and   communicate   to   all   concerned   officers.

Representation/objections, if any were directed to be submitted by

05.01.2016   with   further   direction   that   while   making

representation, issues which have already been raised, considered

and decided, shall not be re­agitated, and it is only new issues, if

any, which may be raised and would be considered by Committee.

2. We have received representations of 110 officers i.e. 76 U.P.

Nyayik Sewa (hereinafter referred to as 'UPNS'), 31 Direct Recruits

(hereinafter   referred   to   as   'DRs')   and   03   coming   from   UPNS

through Limited Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to

as   'LCE').   We   also   afforded   oral   hearing   to   those   officers   who

requested or desired. 46 officers (33 UPNS, 12 DRs and 01 LCE)

availed opportunity of oral hearing. 

3. Now, we propose to take representations and consider the

2

ground   taken   therein   as   also   oral   submissions   advanced   by

respective group of officers and individuals. 

4. Most officers have referred to in extensio judgment in  O.P.

Garg vs. State of U.P, AIR 1991 SC 1202; Srikant Tripathi Vs.

State  of  U.P.  AIR  2001  SC 3757;  U.P.   Judicial  Services  and

others Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 316 of (SB)

2004, decided on 25.08.2004;  Ashok Pal Singh and others Vs.

U.P. Judicial Services Association and others  JT 2010 (10) SC

131;  and  Prabhuji  and another  Vs.  State  of  U.P.  and others

2011 (3) ALJ 268l (Writ Petition No. 1283 of 2000 (SB), decided

on 16.12.2010).

5. We   have   already   referred   to   and   discussed   aforesaid

judgments in our earlier reports but for the purpose of convenience

we   may   reproduce   relevant   directions   contained   in   aforesaid

judgments, which have to be considered and applied by this Court.

6. Directions contained in O.P. Garg (supra), read as under:

"(i) All the 236 promotee officers working against 236posts (229 permanent plus 7 temporary) as AdditionalDistrict  and Sessions Judges on April  5,  1975 shall  bedeemed   to   be   existing   members   of   the   Service   asconstituted  under   the  Rules  with  a  direction   that   theyshall en bloc rank senior to all other officers appointed tothe   service   thereafter   from three   sources   in  accordancewith their quota under the Rules. (ii) The first proviso to Rule 26(1)(a) of the Rules wasstruck   down   with   a   direction   that   the   continuousofficiation/service   by   a   promotee   appointed   under   theRules shall be counted for determining his seniority fromthe date  when a   substantive  vacancy   in  permanent  ortemporary post is made available in his quota under theRules. 

(iii) Sub­rules (3) and (4) of Rule 22 were struck downwith   the   saving   that   the   appointments   already   madeunder the said Sub­rules shall not be invalidated. 

3

(iv) While selecting candidates under Rule 18 of the saidrules,   the   committee   shall   prepare   a   merit   list   ofcandidates twice the number of vacancies and the said listshall remain operative till the next recruitment; and theappointments under Rules 22(1) and 22(2) of the Rulesshall be made to permanent as well as to temporary postsfrom all the three sources in accordance with the quotaprovided under the said rules. 

7. Directions in Shri Kant Tripathi (supra), are as under:

“1.   Appointments   already   made   to   the   higher   judicialservice, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion,need not be annulled and shall be continued. 2.   With   effect   from   1988   recruitment   and   in   allsubsequent recruitments which are the subject matter ofchallenge before us,   the high court  shall  determine thenumber of vacancies available as on the relevant year ofrecruitment in terms of rule 8, as already explained by usand then, allocate the percentage to different sources ofrecruitment,   contained   in   rule   6,   and   after   suchdetermination   is   made,   then   find   out   whether   theappointments   of   direct   recruits   already   made   for   thatrecruitment year are in excess of the quota or within thequota. If it is found that any appointment has been madein excess of the quota, then the said appointee would beallowed to continue, but his or her seniority will have tobe reckoned only when he or she is adjusted in the nextrecruitment. 

3. If in each recruitment year, posts were available inthe quota of promotees and promotion has not beenmade, even though selection had been made underrule 20, then the legitimate right of the promoteescannot be denied and promotion must be made witheffect   from   the   date   they   should   have   beenappointed. 

4. This  exercise  has to be made  for the recruitment of1988 as well as for each subsequent recruitment that hasbeen made. 

4

5. Since the determination under rule 8 is being madenow, pursuant to the directions of this court, in respect ofpast   recruitment  years   for  which recruitment  has  beenmade, the expression "vacancies likely to occur" loses itsimportance and determination has  to be made,  on thebasis   of   the  actual   vacancies  available   in  any  of   suchrecruitment year. 

6.   So   far   as   the  recruitment   of   1998  is   concerned,advertisements   having   been   issued   for  38   vacanciesbeing filled up by direct recruitment and the process ofselection   being   already   over,  but  no   appointmenthaving been made, we think it appropriate to directthat the appointment of the selected candidates maybe   made   against   the   quota   available   to   directrecruits  calculated  in accordance with the rules   inthe light of our decision. 

7. For all future appointments, the high court must takesteps to fill the vacancies of every recruitment year duringthat  year   itself.  The high court  must  determine  thevacancies   not   only   on   the   basis   of   the   actualvacancies on the date of such determination but alsotake   into  account  probable  vacancies  by reason ofsuperannuation of officers in the next two years fromthat  date.  Once   the   vacancies  are   so   determined,   thepercentage of the vacancies available for recruitment bydirect recruitment and by promotion must be fixed andsteps   taken   for   filling   up   the   same   expeditiously.   Thenumber   of   vacancies   available   for   the   direct   recruitsquota must be advertised without any variation clause.The select list prepared both for direct recruits as well asfor   promotees   prepared   by   the   high   court   will   beoperative only till the next recruitment commences withthe   fixation   of   the   vacancies   for   the   next   recruitmentyear. 

8. In U.P. Judicial Service Association [Writ Petition No.316

of 2004 (SB) (supra)],  a Division Bench of this Court issued six

directions. Directions No. 1 and 2 were set aside by Supreme Court

5

in Ashok Pal Singh (supra). Direction 3 was confined to Direction

3 in  Shri Kant Tripathi (supra)  and modified but was also set

aside in Ashok Pal Singh (supra). Only directions 4, 5 and 6 were

upheld and directed to be complied with hence we are reproducing

directions  no.  4,  5  and 6  of  U.P.  Judicial  Service  Association

(supra), which read as under:

“(4) 31 posts of the service which have been transferredto Uttaranchal w.e.f. 30.9.2001 shall be excluded whiledetermining the strength of the service in order to workout 15% quota of direct recruits.

(5) out of 13 unnoticed vacancies, found by the office inthe year 1998 only two vacancies equal to 15% of thequota   of   direct   recruits   be   given   to   them   instead   ofadjusting 5 appointments en bloc and again giving oneout of eight vacancies to them applying 15% quota rule. 

(6) The second proviso to Rule 6 be also given effect to asand when the occasion arises.”

9. In  Ashok   Pal   Singh   (supra),  Court   issued   following

directions:

“(i)   Direction   Nos.   (1)   and   (2)   in   para   55   of   theimpugned order dated 25.8.2004 are set aside; (ii) Direction No.(3) in para 55 of the impugned orderdated 25.8.2004 is restricted to reiteration of directionNo.3 issued in Srikant Tripathi (2001 (10) SCC 237);and 

(iii)  Direction  Nos.   (4),   (5)  and (6)   in   the   impugnedorder dated 25.8.2004 are upheld. 

(iv) The consequential exercise directed by the High Courtshould  be   restricted   to   the  directions  which  have  beenupheld. 

(v) None of the appointments already made to the HigherJudicial   Service,   whether   by   direct   recruitment   or   bypromotion,   shall   be   annulled,   but   shall   be   continued,even if the appointment is found to be in excess of thequota, subject to the condition that the seniority of such

6

excess appointee will be reckoned from the date on whichhe   becomes   entitled   to   be   adjusted   at   the   subsequentrecruitment/s.  Any elevation  to  the High Court  on  thebasis of seniority already given shall also not be affected.”

10. In  Prabhu Ji and others (supra),  a Division Bench of this

Court again issued five directions, which are as under:

(i) Subject to observations made hereinabove, seniority ofall the promotees with regard to vacancies existing priorto  15.3.1996   shall   be   determined   on   the   basis   of   oldunamended Rules (supra) and  for  the vacancies  arisenthereafter, the seniority shall be determined on the basisof amended Rules notified on 15.3.1996 (supra) subjectto S.K. Tripathi & Ashok Pal Singh (supra).

(ii) The roster of 1:1 may be prepared while finalisingseniority   list   only   in   case   the   promotees   and   directrecruits   are   appointed   and   resume   duty   in   the   samerecruitment year.

(iii)   In view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court inthe   case   of   B.S.   Mathur   (supra)   the   seniority   ofpromotees   and   direct   recruits   should   be   tested   on   thebasis of continuous officiation of service without applyingroster in case there is breakage of quota and rota system.Promotees   shall   be  placed   in   the   seniority  against   theyear   of   vacancy   for   which   they   have   been   selectedwhereas, direct recruits shall be given seniority from thedate of resumption of duty. Petitioners shall be entitledfor seniority with effect from 27.5.1996.

(iv)The impugned seniority list has been prepared againstthe settled principles of  law (supra) hence suffers  frominherent  weakness   and   substantial   illegality,   therefore,shall not survive.” 

11. However,   in  SLP   (Civil)   No.   8140   of   2011,   Het   Singh

Yadav Vs. State of U.P.  and others  an interim order has been

passed, staying direction no. 3 in Prabhu Ji (supra). The Court has

further required us to proceed in the matter in accordance with

7

directions contained in decision in Ashok Pal Singh (supra). 

12. We,   therefore,   have   followed   basically   the   aforesaid

directions   in  words  and spirit.  After  determining vacancies  with

best   possible   efforts,   after   extracting   information   from office   in

which we met with a lot of difficulties but ultimately we hope and

trust   that   now   calculation   and   determination   of   sanctioned

strength,  vacancies   in  different  Recruitment   starting  from  initial

period till Recruitment 2009 is correct as virtually no error could

be   pointed   out   by   any   officer   and   some,   raised   in   the   above

representations are being discussed below, showing that there is no

substance. This determination of seniority has, therefore, followed

U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as

“Rules 1975”) in substance. We have also tried to keep in mind

that  no gross   injustice   is  caused to  any officer  since  all  officers

recruited   from   different   sources   are   our   officers   and   everyone

deserves just and fair treatment in the matter of determination of

seniority which is very crucial for their career advancement. 

Sri Rajiv Goyal, ADJ, Mau.

13. One   of   the   submissions   is   that   vacancies   calculated   in

Recruitment 2007 (01.10.2001–31.12.2008) included 20 vacancies

determined between 01.10.2001 to 20.03.2002. Applying quota of

UPNS and DR, i.e. 85% and 15%, 17 were allocated to UPNS and 3

to DRs.   It   is  contended that  all   these 03 vacancies  should have

been   allocated   to   UPNS   since   no   DR   was   available   between

01.10.2001 to 20.03.2002.

14. The   submission   is   thoroughly  misconceived.  The  vacancies

are calculated in the entire recruitment period and under Rule 8(2)

unfilled   vacancies   of  DRs   stand   allocated   to   UPNS.   Against   77

vacancies determined in DR quota, only 41 were actually recruited

and   36   remaining   vacancies   have   been   allocated   to   UPNS.

8

Allocation under Rule 8(2) cannot be simultaneous when vacancies

are  determined and that   too before recruitment because at  that

time it cannot be anticipated as to how many vacancies of DRs will

remain unfilled. Rules nowhere contemplate that unfilled vacancies

of  DR under  Rule  8(2)   shall   stand  allocated   from day  one   i.e.

commencing  from the date when vacancies  are calculated,  even

before   recruitment.   Our   calculation   chart   of   vacancies   of

Recruitment 2007 (Annexure­D to Final Seniority List 2015) is very

clear and we do not find any ambiguity therein.

15. Moreover after determining vacancies, allocation thereof to

officers of different sources has been made, by applying roster and

remaining vacancies thereafter en bloc are given to officers of UPNS

under Rule 8(2). All this exercise has to be done after selection.

The contention that it should have been done on the date when

vacancies occurred, is patently erroneous, hence rejected.

16. It is then contended that 10 DRs of Recruitment 1998­2000

were  not  given appointment along with   their  other  batch­mates

and they got actual appointment in December 2011 and January

2012,   therefore,   should  not  be  given   seniority  along  with   their

batch­mates and instead should be given seniority from the date of

joining.   Reliance   is   placed   in   support   of   above   submission   on

Ramesh Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi (2010) 3 SCC 104. 

17. This   aspect   has   already   been   considered   in   earlier   report

dated  03.03.2011 where  we  have  explained   in  detail   and  have

noticed in subsequent reports also. 38 officers in DR quota were

actually selected in Recruitment 1998­2000. Vacancies determined

in  DR quota  were  challenged  in  writ  petition  no.  U.P.  Judicial

Officers   Association   Vs.   State   of   U.P.   and   others   (supra).

Lucknow Bench passed an interim order on 25.08.2004, permitting

Court to make only 24 appointments and rest 14 despite selection,

could not be given appointment due to said interim order. Since

9

there was a dispute with respect to vacancies and it was attempted

to claim in the aforesaid writ petition, filed by Members of UPNS

that only 24 DRs could have been appointed, hence, Court passed

interim   order,   permitting   only   24   appointments.   Subsequently,

after   judgment,   matter   was   examined   by   Seniority   Committee.

While preparing seniority list  in 2011 and having found that 14

more   officers   from   DR   quota   were   entitled   to   appointment,

recommendation   was   made   and,   thereafter   these   officers   were

given appointment.  Out  of   these 14 officers   issued appointment

letters,  only  10 have  joined  and 4  vacancies   remained unfilled,

which  have   also  been  allotted  under  Rule  8(2)   to  members   of

UPNS.   Now,   their   (UPNS)   claim   that   this   allocation   should   be

made from the date when vacancy occurred, ignoring roster etc.,

cannot be accepted.

18. Secondly, the submission that 10 officers who could not be

appointed earlier, due to interim order passed by this Court, should

be   assigned   seniority   from   the   date   of   joining,   also   cannot   be

accepted and has not been accepted in Final Seniority Report 2011

(hereinafter referred to as “FSR 2011”). In para 327 of FSR 2011

this aspect has been dealt with as under:

“327. Since we have found vacancies available for these

14   persons,   we   recommend   appointments   of   these   14

persons on substantive basis in UPHJS with effect from

date   on   which   other   DRs   of   the   same   selection   were

appointed. These 20 officers were appointed on various

dates varying from 08.06.2005 to 04.01.2007. The last

appointment  of   a  person,  higher   in  merit   of   these  14

officers,   was   made   on   04.01.2007.   Though   inter   se

seniority  of  DRs     shall  be  governed  according   to   their

merit  position in the selection, but considering the fact

that one person higher in merit to these 14 persons was

10

appointed as late as on 04.01.2007,  these 14 officers

are recommended for substantive appointment with

effect from 04.01.2007  and shall count their seniority

from 04.01.2007 but shall go below DRs, higher in merit;

Except arrear of salary, for all purposes this period shall

count   namely   pay   fixation,   retiral   benefits   etc.

Accordingly these 14 persons shall be assigned seniority

at the vacant blocks at Sl. No. 772 to 785.”

19.  While taking above view, we have followed the principle laid

down   in  Dr.  A.R.   Sircar   Vs.   State   of   UP  1992   ALJ   893

(SC)=1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 734.  Therein also, Dr. Sircar though

selected  for   the post  of  Professor   in  Medicine but  could not  be

appointed, due to interim order, passed by Court in a Writ Petition,

filed by non­selected candidate. The writ  petition was dismissed

and only   thereafter  Dr.  Sircar  was  appointed.   In   the meantime,

some non­selected candidates,  working as  ad hoc,  got benefit  of

Regularization   Rules   and   were   regularized   prior   to   regular

appointment   of   Dr.   Sircar.   Subsequently,   question   of   seniority

came up when the candidates who were appointed earlier, claimed

seniority over Dr. Sircar, claiming that Dr. Sircar should be given

seniority from the date of his actual appointment. It may also be

noticed that Dr. Sircar was given appointment from the date order

of  appointment  was   issued  to  him and not   retrospectively.  This

Court   took   the   view   that   since   Dr.   Sircar   was   not   given

appointment   from back  date,   therefore,   his   seniority  will   count

only from the date of his actual appointment i.e. 1.10.1989 and

those   appointed   and   regularized   earlier   would   stand   senior.

Supreme Court did not approve the same. It would be useful to

reproduce relevant observations made in para 6 of the judgment as

under:.

“There can, therefore, be no doubt whatsoever that the

11

appointment   of   the   appellant   was   for   the   vacancy   of

1982­83. Had it not been for the intervening stay order

granted by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1545 of

1986,   the   appellant   would   have   been   appointed   long

before   the   regularization   of   promotion   of   respondents

Nos. 4 and 5 under the 1988 Rules. Respondents Nos. 4

and  5,  who  were   instrumental   in   seeking   the   interim

order from the High Court staying the implementation of

the   select   list   cannot  be  allowed   to   take  advantage  of

their own wrong. The dismissal of their petition on 24th

July,   1989   goes   to   show   that   they   had   successfully

blocked   the   regular   entry   of   the   appellant   on   a

substantive   vacancy   of   the   year   1982­83   by   filing   an

untenable writ petition. The interim order passed by the

High   Court   kept   the   appellant   out   from   securing   a

regular appointment on a substantive vacancy and in the

meantime  respondents  Nos.  4  and 5  by    virtue  of   the

1988   Rules   secured   regularization   of   their   ad   hoc

appointments as Professors of Medicine. It is, therefore,

obvious   that   on   the   one   hand,   they   precluded   the

appellant from occupying the substantive vacancy of  the

year  1982­83 and on  the  other   they  got   their  ad hoc

appointments   regularized   under   1988   Rules.  If   the

intervening   stay   order   had   not   prevented   the

appellant’s appointment to the substantive vacancy,

there can be no doubt that the appellant would have

occupied   that   post   earlier   in   point   of   time   if  Dr.

Aggarwal was not prepared to join. In that case, the

appellant   would   have   been   senior   to   respondents

no.4 and 5. One cannot lose sight of  the fact that

respondents no. 4 and 5 had competed alongwith the

12

appellant for selection to the post a direct recruit but

had  failed.     It   therefore,   stands  to reason both  in

principle and in and in equity that respondents no. 4

and 5 are  not  permitted to take advantage of  the

situation of their creation.” (emphasis added)

20. In the present case, no individual member of UPNS filed writ

petition   but   it   was   filed   by   an   Association   of   UPNS   Officers.

Obviously,   stay  order   was  passed   in   this   writ   petition   filed  by

Association of UPNS. Had stay order not been passed, all these 14

officers would have got appointment alongwith their batch­mates.

For delay of their appointment they are not responsible.

21. Moreover,   in   the   present   case,   appointments   were

recommended with retrospective effect. This recommendation was

accepted by  Full  Court.  Such  appointments  of   these  10 officers

actually made have not been challenged. Therefore, we do not find

as to how these officers can be denied seniority from the date, they

were recommended by the Court for appointment, merely for the

reason that actual appointment was delayed for something they

are not responsible.

22. In the present case, it is not only seniority and appointment

of   these  DRs  has  been  made   in  accordance  with  Rules,  but   in

equity   also,   we   find   that   giving   benefit   to   these   officers,   of

seniority of the period they were entitled to, is neither unjust, nor

illegal and has been allowed after considering the matter in depth.

We find no reason to take a different view now and this objection

is also rejected. 

23. Next   submission   is   that   45   vacancies   which   have   been

deducted on the ground that officers were working under Rule 22

(3) should be treated to be a part of HJS cadre under the judgment

in O.P. Garg (supra) said deduction should not have been made.

13

This   aspect,   we   have   already   dealt   with,   while   determining

vacancies in FSL 2011 and continuously thereafter. Still this issue

has been raised but only in respect of 45 vacancies and not for

others. We do not find any declaration of law or mandate in O.P.

Garg   (supra)  that   officers   of   UPNS  not   appointed  under  Rule

22(1) can be treated to be a part of cadre. Supreme Court struck

down Rules  22   (3)  and  (4),  holding   that  denial  of   substantive

appointments against vacancies on temporary posts by excluding

those vacancies available for DRs, is arbitrary. Court directed that

HJS   cadre   consisted   of   permanent   and   temporary   posts   both,

therefore, vacancies occurring in temporary as well as permanent

posts, shall be available for  Recruitment to all sources. The effect

of striking down Rule 22(3) and (4) would be that even short term

and  ad hoc  appointment made earlier under these Rules,  would

have stood nullified, compelling Court to revert officers of UPNS to

their   substantive  posts.  This  has  been  protected  by   stating   that

officers already appointed on posts in HJS on ad hoc basis shall not

be affected.

24. Neither   earlier  nor  at   any  other  point  of   time,   an  officer

appointed under Rule 22(3) and (4) has been treated a substantive

member of service without being appointed under Rule 22(1). In

order to become a member of service,  one has to be appointed

under Rule 22(1) and only thereafter, one can claim himself to be

a member of service. This is what has been done throughout. Due

to some administrative mistake,  though some officers who were

never assigned any vacancies by us while determining seniority,

since they were not appointed under Rule 22(1), but still on their

suspension, retirement etc., vacancies were counted. This mistake

remained   undetected,   resulting   in   artificial   enhancement   of

vacancies though, actually they were not. This mistake has now

been rectified. We have discussed it in detail in our earlier reports.

14

Nobody   has   disputed   this   fact   that   these   officers   were   never

appointed under Rule 22(1). Unless an officer is appointed under

Rule 22(1) against a vacancy available in his quota, question of

causing a vacancy after his retirement or death or elevation etc.,

would not arise. Deduction of vacancy is on account of wrongful

calculation due to retirement, elevation, death etc. of those officers

who were not allocated any vacancy earlier and did not occupy

any vacancy  in   respective  quota.  These   facts  have  neither  been

challenged before us by anyone including the   representationists,

not have been shown incorrect. Therefore, deduction of vacancies

is perfectly in order. Objection in this regard is rejected.

25. It is then contended that benefit of officiation should have

been given against vacancies which occurred after amendment of

Rules w.e.f. 21.03.2002 and amended Rules should not be given

effect to or treated to be effective retrospectively.

26. In this regard, we may mention that in FSL 2011, as soon as

a member of UPNS   got vacancy in his quota, and was actually

working on a post in HJS, may be on ad hoc basis, from the date

vacancy   in   his   quota   was   available,   we   recommended   his

appointment to be made substantive, from that date, and that has

been acted  upon.  This   is   in  accordance  with  direction given  in

Srikant  Tripathi   (supra)  read  with  Ashok Pal  Singh   (supra).

Thus, question of giving benefit of any officiation actually has not

arisen.

27. However,   after   amendment   of   Rules,   w.e.f.   21.03.2002,

whereby, eligibility qualification has been changed w.e.f. that date,

a person even if had either worked on ad hoc basis or otherwise,

unless eligible or qualified under the amended Rules, cannot be

given   substantive  appointment   in  HJS.  These  Rules,  by  way  of

legislative exercise, have been given effect retrospectively. We have

15

to implement Rules, as they are. On administrative side, we cannot

ignore   retrospective   effect   given   by   legislature   while   amending

Rules.   Since   no   member   of   UPNS   would   have   been   given

appointment  in HJS unless  he  fulfills   requisite  qualification and

eligibility  condition,  even  if   such officer  had been officiating or

working ad hoc or temporarily, treating such officer in HJS cadre

would be illegal, since he was not qualified to hold a post in HJS.

The eligibility  qualification was  acquired  in  2008 and onwards.

Therefore,   treating   service   of   these   officers   valid,   after   they

become eligible and duly qualified, we have proceeded to consider

their   case   for   seniority   to   reckon   from   that   date.   Any   service

rendered by officers before getting qualified under Rules, has to be

ignored. Objection otherwise, therefore rejected.

28. Next   submission   is   that   there   is   double   deduction   of

vacancies and posts in respect of those allocated to Uttaranchal. In

this respect, matter has been discussed in paras No.152 and 153 of

FSR 2015 as under:

“152. One of   the  serious  objection raised  by promottee

officers   is   that   31   officers   shifted   to   Uttaranchal   on

01.09.2001   and   thereafter   but   on   their   relieving   the

vacancies occurred on the date of their relieving have not

been accounted for in determination of total vacancies. 

153. We find that the submission is patently erroneous

and fallacious. After enactment of U.P. Re­organization

Act, 2000 the Central Government allocated 36 posts of

UPHJS to Uttaranchal as well as 36 officers. We reduced

36 vacancies   en  bloc  which occurred upto  30.09.2001

instead of   taking  it  on the date of  relieving.  When 31

officers relieved they did not cause occurrence of any new

vacancy on their own since their vacancy were already

16

allocated   to   Uttaranchal   and   reduced   from   remaining

cadre  of  UPHJS.  Therefore,   on   relieving  of   officers  no

vacancy could have been said  to have occurred afresh.

There could have been another way by reducing vacancies

on the date of relieving and remaining by allocating to

Uttaranchal  en bloc.   In   fact  all   the vacancies  occurred

within the Recruitment 1998­2000 had to be allocated to

Uttaranchal.   Therefore,   36   vacancies   occurred   after

29.03.2001   till   30.09.2001,   have   been   allocated   to

Uttaranchal State. The period of relieving of most of the

officers is upto 30.09.2001 and some thereafter but they

were against 36 posts which were already allocated to

Uttaranchal. In fact five officers lesser in number went to

Uttaranchal.   The   submission,   therefore,   that   at   every

time   when   officers   were   relieved,   a   vacancy   must   be

treated to be occurred, is incorrect and rejected.”

29. It is submitted that calculation of vacancy chart shows that

thirty   six   posts   were   deducted   from   the   strength.   Thereafter

against vacancies occurred during period of Recruitment, again 36

vacancies   have  been   deducted   and   this   has   resulted   in   double

deduction. It is also contended that those officers who actually left

for Uttaranchal, since they were working against posts or vacancies

in U.P., those should have been treated to have fallen vacant on

the date of relieving.

30. The   above   submission   is   patently   erroneous   and   is

misconceived. Deduction of 36 posts from overall strength is quite

natural,   since   sanctioned   strength   of   HJS   in   State   of   U.P.   got

reduced due to creation of Uttaranchal and allocation of 36 posts

of HJS to it. Therefore, from sanctioned strength, as available on

that date, we have deducted 36 posts. The sanctioned strength got

17

reduced   to  816.  But   this   sanctioned   strength,   as   such,   is   not

relevant   to   determine   vacancies   in   recruitment   period,   for   the

reason that vacancies are not calculated by considering number of

officers   actually   working   and,   then,   deducting   the   same   from

actual   strength.   At   the   time   when   recruitment   commenced,

vacancies   are   calculated   by   taking   into   consideration,   existing

vacancies which occurred due to death,  retirement,   termination,

dismissal, resignation, elevation etc., and anticipated vacancies for

next two years which would include vacancies likely to occur due

to   retirement   of   officers.   Vacancies   therefore,   as   such,   are   not

calculated with reference to sanctioned strength.

31. Now, during the period of recruitment, vacancies occurred in

combined State of U.P. till State of Uttaranchal was created. Due to

deduction of 36 posts, we could not and cannot make recruitment

against 36 vacancies i.e. against 36 posts which now became part

of   State   of   Uttaranchal.   Whenever   any   post   goes,   it   includes

vacancy.   If  officer  also goes  along with  post  or  vacancy,   things

would be different, but in the present case, officers actually were

relieved after some time. Vacancies on which they continued to

work after reorganization were available in reorganized State of

U.P.,   since  36  posts   were   made   available   to   Uttaranchal   and

vacancies thereagainst would have been available for recruitment

in Uttaranchal. Therefore, on the date, when strength was reduced,

we gave effect on that very date by reducing 36 vacancies, so that,

they may not be available for further recruitment in reorganized

State   of   U.P.   If   officers   allocated   to   Uttaranchal   have   actually

continued,   obviously,   they   were   working   against   vacancies

available   in   reorganized   State   of  U.P.  which   had   already   been

taken into account for Recruitment.

32. We may also notice that as a matter of fact, only 25 officers

actually left for Uttaranchal, having been allocated thereat. If we

18

place  names  of   these  officers   against   these  36  vacancies,   since

these vacancies  were  not  available   to us,   that  would show that

vacancies   of   these   officers   had   already   been   allocated   to

Uttaranchal and given effect  to.  Hence when they were actually

relieved, they did not result in any further vacancy. 25 officers, in

fact, took their vacancies as well as posts with them and 11 posts

and   vacancies   which   were   also   unfilled,   given   to   State   of

Uttaranchal. To that extent, cadre and vacancies stood reduced in

State of U.P. Submission of double deduction or non­consideration

of   subsequent   occurrence   of   vacancies   when   officers   left   for

Uttaranchal is nothing but a fallacious argument, hence rejected. 

33. It is then contended that some officers were likely to retire

subsequently   and   their   vacancies   have   been   shown   to   have

occurred on that  date  ignoring the fact   that these officers  were

already  elevated   to  Bench,  causing  vacancies  on  their  elevation

and, therefore, date of occurrence of vacancies in this regard have

been noted differently.  We have examined this  matter and  find

that   in  Recruitment  2007,   following  five  officers  were  going   to

retire   upto   31.12.2008   and   treating   anticipated   vacancies   in

recruitment period, same were calculated.

Name S/Sri Date of Retirement

Shiv Charan Sharma 30.06.2007

Satyendra Kumar Jain 30.11.2007

Vijay Kumar Verma 31.03.2008

Subhash Chandra Nigam 30.06.2008

Ashok Kumar Roopanwal 31.10.2008

34. These   officers,   however,   were   elevated   on   20.11.2006

resulting vacancies on their elevation. Therefore, actual occurrence

of  vacancies  of   these officers  would be 20.11.2006 and not  the

date of  retirement.  We have made necessary  corrections  in   this

19

regard   by   changing   date   of   occurrence   of   vacancies   of   these

officers, but it has not resulted any difference in inter se seniority.

35. Similarly, for Recruitment 2009 following four officers were

going to retire in 2009 and 2010. On account of retirement, their

vacancies   were   taken   as   anticipated   vacancies   on   the   date   of

retirement. 

Name S/Sri Date of Retirement

Rajesh Chandra­I 31.08.2009

Kashi Nath Pandey 31.12.2009

Shree Kant Tripathi 31.12.2009

Shyam Shanker Tiwari 31.01.2010

36. These   officers,   however,   were   elevated   on   13.04.2009

causing   vacancies   on   the   date   of   elevation.   We   have   made

necessary correction in the date of occurrence of vacancies of these

officers  by   treating  date  of   vacancies  when   these  officers  were

elevated  but   it  has  also  not   resulted   in  any   change   in  inter   se

seniority.

37. It is next submitted that there are five more officers namely,

Ms.   Jaya   Shree   Tiwari,   Subhash   Chandra   Agarwal,   Yogesh

Chandra Gupta, Ashok Srivastava and Virendra Kumar Dixit, who

were also elevated on 13.04.2009,  but  their  vacancies  have not

been taken into consideration in Recruitment 2009. Reason is that

these   five   officers   were   not   going   to   retire   in   the   period   of

Recruitment 2009 and, therefore, these officers did not result in

anticipated vacancies during Recruitment period of 2009. It  is a

different   thing  that   these   five officers  were  actually  elevated  in

2009.   There   were   unforeseen   vacancies.   Therefore,   for   next

recruitment which had been made after 2009, vacancies caused by

these five officers are treated as existing vacancies and have been

dealt with accordingly. 

20

38. Unforeseen   vacancies   did   not   constitute   anticipated

vacancies and this aspect has also been considered in detail in Sri

Kant Tripathi (supra), wherein, it has been held that vacancies

caused due to death, resignation etc., are unforeseen vacancies and

when  Recruitment   is   to  be  made,   they  are  not   to  be   taken  as

anticipated vacancies. Upto 1998­2000 Supreme Court specifically

directed   that   since   exercise   of   determination   of   vacancies   and

seniority   is   now   to   be   made   after   more   than   two   decades,

therefore,   till   1998   Recruitment,   all   vacancies,   irrespective   of

manner   in   which   they   have   occurred,   shall   be   considered

available/existing vacancies and would be dealt with but thereafter

for further recruitments, vacancies will have to be calculated as per

Rules,   i.e.,  when  process   of  Recruitment   commences,   vacancies

existing  and  anticipated   in  next   two  years  will   be   relevant   for

Recruitment and nothing else.  That   is  how, due to elevation of

these five officers on 13.04.2009 the same has not been counted in

Recruitment 2009 for the reason that in Recruitment 2009 they

were unforeseen vacancies and not anticipated, hence, not relevant

for  Recruitment  2009  but  have   to  be  dealt  with   in   subsequent

Recruitment. 

39. Last submission is that FSL 2011 should not be touched. We

have   already   pointed   out   that   a   glaring   mistake,   factual   or

otherwise if noticed at any point of time, there is no prohibition

that such mistake should not be rectified. Moreover, in FSL 2011

we have already said that  for convenience purpose, we took up

determination   of   vacancies   and   assignment   of   seniority   upto

Recruitment 1998­2000 and subsequent one would be dealt with

in next phase. If in subsequent exercise, anything is required to be

done to make the things right, that has to be done. Moreover, we

have   also   referred   to   authorities   of   Apex   Court   in   this   regard

showing that seniority is not sacrosanct for all purposes and for

21

valid reason(s) the same can be touched or altered

40.  Here the alternation is done to deduction of vacancies .No

officer has pointed out anything that deduction is not correct. That

being the factual position, we have no hesitation in holding that

such a large scale mistake had to be rectified and corrected, else it

would have caused serious  injustice to those who are otherwise

adversely affected. No person can be allowed to suffer for a glaring

administrative mistake committed by employer (High Court) and

that   is  how we  have   rectified  mistakes  which  have   resulted   in

alteration of seniority of very few officers who are at the end of

FSL 2011, since they could not get vacancy in their quota and have

gone down below some DR officers.

41. We may also note that any undue or incorrect addition of

vacancy has throughout caused benefit to UPNS only by virtue of

Rule 8(2) since actual Recruitment from DR, most of time, is less

than  actual  number  of   vacancies   in   their  quota  and,   therefore,

remaining vacancies have always gone to UPNS. Artificial creation

of vacancies has caused undue advantage to officers of UPNS. It

was necessary to rectify   it.   It   is  very  inequitable on the part  of

UPNS to suggest and insist that undue advantage which has been

conferred upon them should be allowed to persist and should not

be taken away from them. No one should insist for continuance of

an undue and illegal benefit which it has got due to mistake of

department. In the present case, no monitory or otherwise loss has

been caused,  yet  we have also  taken care   in   this   regard  but   if

vacancy is not available, we cannot help officers of UPNS in their

request to still confer a higher seniority upon them despite non­

availability of vacancies within their quota.

42. One  Sri   Sushil  Kumar   Rastogi,   Officer   on   Special   Duty,

UPSLSA,   Lucknow   also   raised   an   additional   point   that   some

22

officers   who   passed   suitability   test   in   2008   in   first   available

opportunity have been assigned seniority but similarly placed other

officers have not been given seniority w.e.f. 2008. They should also

be given similar treatment. It appears that the officer concerned

has   failed   to   understand   the   effect   that   despite   possessing

eligibility and qualification, appointment cannot be made unless

the officer concerned has a vacancy available within his quota. In

para 141 of FSR 2015, we have made recommendation in regard

to   21   UPNS   officers   to   be   given   substantive   appointment   with

effect from 11.08.2008, since they all qualified suitability test in

2008 but this is also subject to the fact that these officers could get

vacancies   within   quota   available   for   UPNS   officers   in   2007

Recruitment. In seniority list 2015, these 21 officers are shown at

serial no. 1007 to 1027 and they have got vacancies commencing

from 31.01.2008 to 31.10.2008, which was part of the period of

Recruitment 2007. Due to non­availability of  vacancies in UPNS

quota,   despite   the   fact   that   some   more   officers   have   passed

suitability   test   in   2008,   neither   they   can   be   accommodated   in

Recruitment  2007 nor   can  be  assigned  seniority  along  with  21

officers stated above. The contention raised by the aforesaid officer

thus stand rejected. 

43.  Another officer  Smt. Saroj  Yadav,  District  Judge,  Rampur

has also raised an additional plea that four vacancies allocated to

UPNS in 1998­2000 Recruitment have not  been utilized.  In our

earlier   vacancy  determination   in  2011,   vacancies   of   1998­2000

Recruitment for UPNS and DRs were determined as 171 and 34

respectively. It is this Recruitment, in which, a writ petition was

filed  at  Lucknow Bench,   challenging  Direct  Recruitment  on   the

ground that actual number of vacancies would be only 20. By an

interim order, Court allowed appointment of only 20 DRs and 14

appointments were stayed. After decision in the aforesaid matter,

23

those   appointments   were   recommended   to   be   made

retrospectively.   Against 14 only 10 DRs actually joined. We have

dealt   with   this   aspect   in   FSR   2015   (Para   106)   and   allocated

remaining four vacancies of DRs to UPNS. While preparing vacancy

chart,   however,   we   have   straightaway   allowed   all   remaining

vacancies of DRs to UPNS. Annexure B­3 to FSR 2015 would show

that determination of vacancies for UPNS is 158 and for DRs it is

30, which is  actual number of DRs appointed. 158 vacancies of

UPNS includes unfilled vacancies of DRs which are to be adjusted

under   Rule   8(2).   In   entirety,   in   Recruitment   1998­2000,   there

were 188 vacancies (158 UPNS and 30 DR). All have been utilized

and allocated and thereafter seniority has been determined. None

has been left unfilled. Officer concerned has not been able to show

as   to  which  vacancy   remained unfilled.  Counting of  number  of

officers   of   UPNS   and   DR   allocated   against   188   vacancies   is

verifiable   from  seniority   list   appended   to  FSR   2015.  Thus,   the

point raised by Smt. Saroj Yadav has no substance, hence rejected.

44. Smt. Saroj Yadav has further said that there are some officers

namely, S/Sri Yogendra Singh­I, Dinesh Kumar Sharma­I, Dileep

Singh,   Ashok   Kumar   Awasthi,   Sanjeev   Shiromani,   Sri   Narain

Upadhyay,   Ram   Kailash   and   Gopal   Kulsherestha,   who   were

superseded for temporary/ad hoc  promotion under Rule 22(3) of

Rules, 1975 but in the seniority list they have been placed above

Smt.   Saroj   Yadav,   though   she   was   officiating/working   on

temporary   basis   under   Rule   22(3),   having   been   selected   and

appointed for that purpose, while aforesaid officers having been

superseded did not officiate. Again, we find that the submission

lacks   substance   and   appears   to   have   been   made   without

appreciating the report.  In FSR 2015, Smt.  Saroj Yadav has got

vacancy within UPNS quota   in  Recruitment 2007 and has  been

assigned seniority from the date of her appointment, made under

24

Rule  22(1),   i.e.,  11.08.2008.   In   fact,  all  UPNS officers   in  2007

Recruitment have been assigned seniority by reckoning seniority

from   the   date   they   were   appointed   under   Rule   22(1),   i.e.,

11.08.2008. Reason  in  this regard has already been narrated in

detail in FSR 2015, i.e., effect of passing of suitability test in 2008.

Period   of   officiation,   therefore,   has   lost   any   significance,

whatsoever,   for   the  purpose  of   seniority   so   far  as  Recruitments

2007 and 2009 are concerned. It is for this reason, the fact that

some   officers   were   not   found   fit   for  ad   hoc  or   temporary

appointment under Rule 22(3) has no significance when all these

officers were found fit for substantive appointment simultaneously

with other officers including Smt. Saroj Yadav and they have been

appointed   under   Rule   22   (1)   by   same   notification   dated

11.08.2008. 

45. This  officer,  Smt.  Saroj  Yadav has  referred  to  an  affidavit

filed by this Court in IA 12 of 2015 in CA 5270 of 2012 before

Supreme Court, i.e., in case of Het Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.,

stating that seniority list of 2013 and tentative seniority list 2014 is

in   consonance   with   principle   laid   down   in  Ashok   Pal   Singh

(Supra), O.P. Garg (Supra) and S.K. Tripathi (Supra). She said

that now a different stand has been taken by this Committee for

determination   of   vacancies   of   officers   of   2007   and   2009

Recruitment. We find that there is no deviation on our part from

aforesaid stand. The problem lies in the understanding of officer

concerned.   Entire   controversy   with   regard   to   determination   of

vacancy and seniority broadly has two phases. Firstly, period which

was subject matter of dispute in S.K. Tripathi (Supra) and Ashok

Pal  Singh  (supra)  wherein  Recruitments  under   challenge  were

upto 1998­2000.  Secondly,   the period subsequent   to 1998­2000

Recruitment.

46. Principles   laid   down   in  O.P.   Garg   (Supra),   Sri   Kant

25

Tripathi   (Supra)  and  Ashok   Pal   Singh   (Supra),   have   been

adopted   and   followed   upto   Recruitment   1998­2000   (ended   on

30.9.2001) and there is no deviation. Thereafter, due to change in

Rules  for subsequent appointments,  entire  scenario has changed

with effect from 21.3.2002. Rules 1975 for HJS have undergone

substantial   amendment   with   effect   from   21.03.2002,   vide   HJS

Amendment  Rules   of   2007.  After  Recruitment  1998­2000,  next

recruitment in UPHJS is of 2007. That Recruitment substantially

has   to  be  governed  by   the  aforesaid  amended  Rules.  We  have

applied   earlier   principles   to   the   vacancies   occurred   upto

20.3.2002,   and   thereafter   amended   Rules   have   been   followed.

Principle of seniority therefore, so far as available and applicable,

consistent with law laid down in the aforesaid cases, have been

followed, subject, of course, to compliance of amended Rules also.

47.  Committee cannot proceed mechanically to follow principles

laid   down   in   the   aforesaid   cases   for   Recruitment   2007   and

onwards,   overlooking   or   ignoring   amendment   in   Recruitment

Rules   of   HJS   w.e.f.   21.3.2002.   We   have   abided   by   Rules   of

seniority,  as  also  principles   laid  down in   the  aforesaid  cases  of

Apex Court for determining vacancies and seniority of officers of

Recruitment 2007 and 2009   and have also adhered to the effect

and   consequences   resulting  due   to   retrospective   amendment  of

HJS   Rules   1975,   with   regard   to   eligibility   qualification   for

promotion in HJS. Therefore, we do not find any inconsistency in

the   stand   taken   by   this   Court   in  Het   Singh   Yadav's  appeal,

pending before Apex Court. It may also be mentioned that Sri Het

Singh Yadav was a Direct Recruit of 1990 Batch, and therefore,

Smt. Saroj Yadav cannot claim parity with Sri Het Singh Yadav and

similarly placed other officers of UPNS appointed in UPHJS. 

48. She has also raised plea that DRs are entitled to seniority

from   the   date   of   joining   and   not   from   the   date,   vacancy   has

26

occurred. In this regard, she has referred to following judgments in

support of her stand:

(1). Sri Kant Tripathi (Supra),

(2). A.R. Sircar Vs State of U.P. and others (1993) Supp. 2SCC 734

(3). Ashok Pal Singh (Supra)

(4). Prabhuji and another (supra)

(5). A. Janardhana Vs. Union of India and other (1983) 3SCC 6012 para 38

49. We   have   not   assigned   seniority   to   DRs   from   the   date   of

occurrence of vacancies available within quota of DRs. Smt. Yadav

was also present for oral hearing but could not point out even a

single case in which only DR has been assigned seniority from the

date of occurrence of vacancy within his quota. During course of

hearing she referred case of ten officers of 1998­2000 Recruitment

who could be given actual appointment in 2011 and January 2012

but their cases we have already discussed above and need not be

repeated.

50. She has also said that Rule of seniority, i.e. Rule 26 has not

undergone   any   amendment   and,   therefore,   there   shall   be   no

adverse effect on the matter of determination of seniority of UPNS

officers. She has failed to consider that Rule 26 deals with seniority

stating   that   it   shall  be  determined  in  accordance with  order  of

appointment  in service under Rule 22(1) and 22 (2).  Seniority,

therefore,   is   directly   dependent   on   apportionment   under   Rule

22(1)   and   (2).   Reckoning   point   for   seniority,   is   the   order   of

appointment under Rule 22(1) and (2). Now when we go to order

of   appointment  under  Rule  22(1)  and   (2),  Rules  pertaining   to

Recruitment immediately comes into picture. Anyone who has not

been validly appointed or not appointed under Rule 22(1) and (2),

cannot claim seniority for a period before that. On the one hand,

she   claims   that   for   the   purpose   of   seniority,   even  ad   hoc

27

appointment should be given due weightage and on the other land,

she says that Rule of seniority only be adhered to, ignoring Rules

pertaining to appointment. This contention appears to have been

made   without   understanding   scheme   of   Rules   and   inter­

relationship of Rules of appointment and seniority in the scheme of

Rules 1975.  

51. Other UPNS officers namely  S/Sri/ Smt. Kalpana Mishra,

D.J.,  Auraiya,  Pradeep Kumar Consul, A.D.J.,  Auraiya, Satish

Chandra   Sharma,   D.J.(Retd.),   Jalaun   at   Orai,   Anil   Kumar

Pundir, ADJ, Aligarh, Mohd. Zaheeruddin, ADJ, Aligarh, Neeraj

Nigam,   HJS,   A.D.J.   Mau,   Govind   Ballabh(Sharma),   ADJ,

Maharajganj,   Vinay   Khare,   ADJ,   Basti,   Veer   Nayak   Singh,

Principal   Judge   Family   Court,   Aligarh,   Ayaz   Ahmad,   ADJ,

Saharanpur, Praveen Kumar Jain, ADJ, Firozabad, Ram Naresh

Maurya,   A.D.J.   G.B.Nagar,   Pankaj   Kumar   Upadhyay,

A.D.J.Pilibhit,   Ravindra   Vikram   Singh,   OSD,   High   Court,

Lucknow, Narendra Kumar­IV, ADJ, Baharaich, Shyam Narayan

Tripathi,  ADJ,  Hathras,  Hari  Nath  Pandey,  ADJ,  Banda,  Km.

Kumudni Verma, Principal Judge Family Court, Allahabad and

Avinash   Saxena,   Principal   Judge   Family   Court,   Kanshiram

Nagar  have   raised   similar   contentions,   hence,   all   their

representations stand rejected in the light of above discussion.

52. One Sri Sanjay Shanker Pandey, Joint Registrar (Accounts)

High Court, Lucknow Bench has attempted to dispute vacancies in

a very interesting manner. He obtained RTI information as to how

many officers in HJS were working on 30.9.2001. Reply given by

Court   is,   655   UPNS   and   74   DRs.   Total   comes   to   729.   After

deducting aforesaid number of working officers from sanctioned

strength available on 30.9.2001, he submits that on 30.9.2001,  87

posts were vacant and taking into account anticipated vacancies in

subsequent period, total would come to 403. He further submits

28

that there were 17 officers who should not have been considered

as working in HJS cadre on 30.9.2001. Thus, total vacancies comes

to   420.   He   has   completely   made   a   mess   of   the   scheme   of

Recruitment in HJS Rules. Sanctioned strength has nothing to do

with determination of vacancies. It has to be done as per Rule 8.

When   information   was   given   to   him   with   regard   to   officers

working against HJS post on 30.9.2001, the same included officers

appointed   under   Rule   22(1)   as   well   as   22(3)   and   (4).   On

30.9.2001, cadre strength was 816. One post was created during

Recruitment period of 2007 and total comes to 817. However, 26

posts of NDPS were abolished, hence cadre strength stood reduced

to 791. Registry gave information as per officers actually available

on   30.09.2001   but   for   Recruitment   1998­2000,   actual

appointments   have   been   made   even   after   30.9.2001   against

vacancies of the said Recruitment. If, seniority list prepared by the

committee is perused, it would show that all vacancies in existing

strength as on 30.9.2001 have been allocated or occupied by one

or     the  other  officer.  None has  been  left  unfilled.   It   is   for   this

reason, that for Recruitment 2007, vacancies have been calculated

which have occurred from 01.10.2001 and onwards till 31.12.2008

which is  the period of Recruitment 2007. The manner in which

aforesaid  officer  has  attempted   to  calculate  vacancies,   is   totally

erroneous and misconceived, hence, objection is rejected. 

53. This   very   officer   has   also   said   that   one   Sri   Suraj   Prasad

Shukla was promoted on 30.01.1996 and reverted on 05.12.1998.

Hence,   his   vacancy   also   should   have   been   taken   into   account

which has not been done. The issue of Sri Suraj Prasad Shukla and

notification dated 05.12.1998 is noticed in para 92 of our report

dated 14.07.2011. We had not assigned any vacancy in HJS to Sri

Suraj Prasad Shukla. Hence, question of vacancy occurring on his

reversion also would not arise.

29

54. Sri Sanjay Shanker Pandey has also taken a plea that one

Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav  was appointed under Rule 22(1) vide

notification   dated   11.08.2008   but   he   has   not   been   given   any

posting by High Court. Therefore, his vacancy should have been

assigned   to  another  officer.  We  have  dealt  with   this  matter   of

Ravindra Nath Yadav  in para 172 of FSR 2015 which reads as

under:

“172. There is an officer Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav, who

has been placed at Serial No. 943.  An objection has been

raised by one  Sri Ram Manohar Narain Mishra,  an

officer of UPNS, stating that Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav

should not have been included in the Seniority List since

Court's notification under Rule 22 (1) of Rules, 1975 was

not   issued.    We  find   this   statement   factually   incorrect

inasmuch   as   in   the   Appointment   Notification   No.

1954/2/Do­4­2008­32(1)   of   2005   dated   11th  August,

2008   issued   by   the   State   Government   notifying

appointments  under  Rule  22(1)  and (2)  of   the  Rules,

1975. Name of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav is at Serial No.

183.  What we find further is that before this Court could

give posting order to him, it was found that some inquiry

was pending against him, therefore, posting order could

not   be   issued   and   ultimately   Shri   Yadav   was   retired

compulsorily   by   order   dated   3rd  March,   2013.     Since

notification appointing Shri  Yadav was already  issued,

we find no justification to deny him place in Seniority

List.”

55. Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav was appointed under Rule 22(1) by

notification dated 11.08.2008. Mere fact that he was not assigned

any   posting,   would   make   no   difference   for   the   reason   that

30

appointing authority is Governor who appointed Sri Yadav in HJS

by notification dated 11.08.2008. Vacancy, therefore, was rightly

assigned to Sri Yadav. This officer has now compulsorily retired on

03.03.2013 and therefore, has caused vacancy on such date and

that   would   be   considered   in   Recruitment   subsequent   to

Recruitment in question i.e. 2007 and 2009.

56. The   objection   raised   by  Sri   Kaushalendra   Yadav,   ADJ,

Meerut  and  Sri   Narendra   Bahadur   Yadav,   ADJ,   Sitapur  are

almost   similar   to   that   of   Sri   Sanjay   Shanker   Pandey.   Hence,

representations of these officers also stand rejected for the reasons

stated above.

57. Sri  Subhash   Chand,  a   Direct   Recruit   of   1998­2000

Recruitment   has   claimed   that   he   should   have   been   assigned

seniority   along   with   officers   of   his   Batch.   We   have   assigned

seniority to this officer and similarly placed 09 other officers who

actually   got   appointment   belatedly   in   the   December   2011   and

January  2012.  The  manner   in  which   they  have  been  placed   in

seniority   has   been   discussed   in   para   327   of   our   Report   dated

14.07.2011 which reads as under:

“327.Since we have found vacancies available for these

14   persons,   we   recommend   appointments   of   these   14

persons on substantive basis in UPHJS with effect from

date   on   which   other   DRs   of   the   same   selection   were

appointed. These 20 officers were appointed on various

dates varying from 08.06.2005 to 04.01.2007. The last

appointment  of  a  person,  higher   in  merit   of   these  14

officers,   was   made   on   04.01.2007.   Though   inter   se

seniority  of  DRs     shall  be  governed  according   to   their

merit position in the selection, but considering the fact

that one person higher in merit to these 14 persons was

31

appointed as late as on 04.01.2007,  these 14 officers

are recommended for substantive appointment with

effect from 04.01.2007  and shall count their seniority

from   04.01.2007   but   shall   go   below   DRs,   higher   in

merit; Except arrear of salary, for all purposes this period

shall   count   namely   pay   fixation,   retiral   benefits   etc.

Accordingly these 14 persons shall be assigned seniority

at the vacant blocks at Sl. No. 772 to 785.”

58. This officer has further contended that there are 13 officers

of UPNS i.e. Deo Kant Tyagi and others who were officiating as

Civil   Judge (Senior  Division)   in  Recruitment  period 1998­2000,

hence, cannot be placed above DRs of 1998­2000 Recruitment. 

59. A similar argument of Batch­wise seniority was raised by DRs

before a larger Bench of five Judges in K.N. Singh and others Vs.

State of U.P. and others, 1999 ALJ 472  and has been rejected.

The issue therefore, is already covered by aforesaid verdict. DRs,

even if,  have got vacancies at earlier point of time, they cannot

claim seniority prior to the date of their appointment. Earlier, Sri

Deo Kant Tyagi got vacancy in his quota on 24.10.2001 and was

recommended for substantive appointment w.e.f 24.10.2001 and

notification was  issued accordingly on 21.09.2011, making such

appointment substantive. Due to exclusion of certain vacancies, as

discussed in our FSR 2015, vacancy became available in the quota

of UPNS to Sri Deo Kant Tyagi on 31.10.2001. Therefore, in para

28   of   FSR   2015   we   have   recommended   for   his   substantive

appointment from 31.10.200. In respect of other similarly placed

officers similar minor alteration has also been recommended. Para

128 of FSR 2015 reads as under:

“128. Now we come to the question of determination of

vacancies. Here it would be worthy to notice, as already

32

said, that there is a division of period from 01.10.2001

to   20.03.2002   and   from   21.03.2002   to   31.12.2008.

This   is  on  account  of  amendment  of  Rules  1975.    17

vacancies   in   the   quota   of   UPNS   occurred   between

01.10.2001   to   20.03.2002,  i.e.  before   aforesaid

amendment of Rules 1975. In our view, maintaining the

earlier   principles,   17   UPNS   officers   should   be   placed

against these 17 vacancies. Out of 29 officers, who have

been excluded  from rectified SL­2011, we find that 14

would  get   vacancies  against   these  17  vacancies.  Three

officers    i.e. Sri Yogendra Singh­I, Sri Dinesh Kumar

Sharma­I  and  Sri   Dileep   Singh  who   were   also

substantively appointed in 2005 are entitled to allocation

of vacancies against these 17 vacancies. 14 officers as per

recommendation   of   SL­2011   were   already   given

substantive   appointment   w.e.f.   24.10.2001   vide

Government Order dated 14.09.2011, though they were

actually appointed substantially in 2005 and 2008. We

recommend modification of the said order to the extent of

thee 14 officers and further substantive appointment of

three other  officers   from the date as mentioned in  the

following chart:

Sl. Name of the Officer S/Sri Existing date of substantive appointment 

Revised date of substantive appointment  

1. Deo Kant Tyagi 24.10.2001 31.10.2001

2. Sukh Ram 24.10.2001 31.10.2001

3. Shyam Bihari Sharma 24.10.2001 31.12.2001

4. Rajendra Babu Sharma 24.10.2001 31.12.2001

5. Badrud Duja Naqvi 24.10.2001 31.12.2001

6. Pradeep Kumar Srivastava 24.10.2001 1/2.01.2002

7. Richh Pal Singh 24.10.2001 31.01.2002

8. Jai Mangal Sharma 24.10.2001 31.01.2002

33

9. Anil Kumar 24.10.2001 31.01.2002

10. Ram Krishna Upadhyay 24.10.2001 31.01.2002

11. Ashwani Kumar Singh 24.10.2001 31.01.2002

12. Chaitanya Kumar Kulshrestha 24.10.2001(Notional)

31.01.2002

13. Shiv Kumar Singh­II 24.10.2001 31.01.2002

14. Mahesh Prasad Srivastava 24.10.2001 14.02.2002

15. Yogendra Singh I 13.04.2005 26.06.2002

16. Dinesh Kumar Sharma­I 13.04.2005 05.08.2002

17.  Dileep Singh  13.04.2005 30.04.2003

”

60. This exercise is done consistent with the directions contained

in paras 3 and 4 of judgment of  Sri Kant Tripathi Vs. State of

U.P. (Supra) which read as under:

“3. If in each recruitment year, posts were available in

the   quota   of   promotees   and   promotion   has   not   been

made, even though selection had been made under rule

20, then the legitimate right of the promotees cannot be

denied and promotion must be made with effect from the

date they should have been appointed. 

4.  This  exercise  has to be made  for the recruitment of

1988 as well as for each subsequent recruitment that has

been made. ”

61. The contention that  Sri Subhash Chand  should be placed

above the aforesaid officer has no basis and has to be rejected.

62. The  DRs  of   1998­2000  Batch   namely,   S/Sri  Shashi  Kant

Shukla,  ADJ,  Kanpur  Nagar,  Dinesh Kumar Sharma­III,  ADJ,

Lalitpur,   Umesh   Kumar   Sharma,   ADJ,   Saharanpur   and   Atul

Kumar   Gupta,   Spl.   Judge,   Allahabad  have   also   moved

representations raising almost similar contentions as Sri Subhash

Chand. Hence, in the light of observations made above, the same

are also rejected.

34

63. Sri Rajat Singh Jain, Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Bulandshahar represented that in para 3 of appointment letter of

DRs and UPNS it was mentioned as follows:

“३.  बार से सीधी भती दारा उचचतर नयाियक सेवा मे िनयुिक एवं पोनित दारा िनयुक अिधकािरयो के मधय रोसटर के अनुसार उनका सथान माo उचच नयायालय दारा बाद मे िनधारिरत िकया जाएगा। ”

“The place amongst officers appointed in Higher JudicialService   by   direct   recruitment   from   Bar   and   officersappointed by promotion shall be determined by the HighCourt   subsequently   according   to   roster.”   (Englishtranslation by Court)

64. The  officer   says   that   for   the  purpose  of   seniority,  officers

should be arranged by applying roster.  Roster under Rule 22 is

applicable by making vacancies available for appointment and that

has been done by Committee. Available vacancies in a particular

year of  appointment have been allocated to officers  of  different

sources  by  applying   roster.  There   is  no   repeated  application  of

roster at every stage. The contention, therefore, is not sustainable

and is accordingly rejected.

65. One Ms. Pratima Srivastava, Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Shahjahanpur has represented that officers of UPNS who

are  allocated vacancies  under Rule 8(2),  can be given seniority

after last Direct Recruit of concerned year of Recruitment and not

before   that.  She  has   referred   to   judgment   in  All   India   Judges

Association's case. Allocation of vacancies have been done, as we

have already said, by applying roster etc. for Recruitment 2007 &

2009. The principle of seniority as under HJS Rules 1975 cannot

be ignored for any reason otherwise. She has reproduced following

excerpts   from   the   judgment   of  All   India   Judges   Association

(Supra):

“29. Experience has shown that there has been a constant

discontentment   amongst   the   members   of   the   Higher

35

Judicial Service in regard to their seniority in service. For

over   three   decades   large   number   of   cases   have   been

instituted in order to decide the relative seniority  from

the   officers   recruited   from   the   two   different   sources,

namely, promotees and Direct Recruits. As a result of the

decision  today,   there  will,   in  a  way,  be   three  ways  of

recruitment   to   Higher   Judicial   Service.   The   quota   for

promotion which we have prescribed  is  50 per cent by

following the principle "merit­cum­seniority", 25 per cent

strictly   on   merit   by   limited   departmental   competitive

examination   and   25   per   cent   by   direct   recruitment.

Experience   has   also   shown   that   the   least   amount   of

litigation   in   the   country,   where   quota   system   in

recruitment exists, in so far as seniority is concerned, is

where a roster system is followed. For example,there is, as

per   the   Rules   of   the   Central   Government,   a   40­point

roster  which has  been prescribed which deals  with  the

quotas   for   Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes.

Hardly, if ever, there has been a litigation amongst the

members of the Service after their recruitment as per the

quotas,   the   seniority   is   fixed  by   the   roster  points  and

irrespective of the fact as to when a person is recruited.

When roster system is followed, there is no question of

any   dispute   arising.   The   40­point   roster   has   been

considered   and   approved   by   this   Court   in   R.   K.

Sabharwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab reported in 1995

(2)   SCC   745.   One   of   the   methods   of   avoiding   any

litigation and bringing about certainty in this regard is

by   specifying   quotas   in   relation   to   posts   and   not   in

relation to the vacancies. This is the basic principle on the

basis of which the 40 point roster works. We direct the

High Courts to suitably amend and promulgate Seniority

Rules on the basis of the roster principle as approved by

this Court in R. K. Sabharwal's case (supra) as early as

possible. We hope that as a result thereof there would be

no   further   dispute   in   the   fixation   of   seniority.   It   is

36

obvious   that   this   system   can   only   apply   prospectively

except where under the relevant Rules seniority is to be

determined on the basis of quota and rotational system.

The   existing   relative   seniority   of   the   members   of   the

Higher Judicial Service has to be protected but the roster

has to be evolved for the future. Appropriate rules and

methods   will   be   adopted   by   the   High   Courts   and

approved   by   the   States,   wherever   necessary   by   31st

March, 2003.

30.  We   disapprove   the   recommendation   of   giving   any

weightage   to   the  members   of   the  Subordinate   Judicial

Service in their promotion to the Higher Judicial Service

in determining seniority vis­a01­vis Direct Recruits  and

the promotees. The roster system will ensure fair play to

all while improving efficiency in the service.”

66. Apex Court has required for amendment of Rules in the light

of  observation made  in   the  aforesaid   judgment  and Rules  have

been amended accordingly. There is no direction for amendment

of  Rule  of   seniority   in   the  manner,  as   is  being  claimed by   the

aforesaid   officer.   Her   claim   reads   something   in   the   aforesaid

judgment   which   is   not   there.   Rules   of   Recruitment   and

appointment have already been suitably amended and given effect

to. This contention, therefore, has no force and is rejected.

67. Representations of following officers namely, S/Sri  Dr. Ajay

Kumar­II,   ADJ,   Mau,   Virjendra   Kumar   Singh,ADJ,   Rampur,

Jitendra Kumar Sinha, ADJ, Barielly, Bhanu Deo Sharma, ADJ,

Shahjanpur,   Sanjeev   Fauzdar,   ADJ,   Bareilly,   Tarun   Saxena,

ADJ, Raebareli, Babbu Sarang, HJS, ADJ, Sultanpur, Ravi Nath,

ADJ,   Bareilly,   Dinesh   Chand,   ADJ,   Muzaffar   Nagar,   Gaurav

Kumar Srivastava, ADJ, Muzaffar Nagar, Anil Kuamr Jha, ADJ,

Ghaziabad,   Anil   Kumar   Verma,   ADJ,   Shahjanpur,   Padam

Narain Mishra, ADJ, Pratapgarh, Rameshwar, ADJ, Pratapgarh,

37

Ashwini  Kumar Tripathi,  Spl.Judge,  Agra,  Santosh Rai,  ADJ,

Agra, Sandeep Jain,  ADJ,  Bijnor,  Avnish Saxena, Spl.  Judge,

SC/ST,   Bareilly,   Harvir   Singh,   Registrar,   Appellate   Tribunal

Electricity, New Delhi (at present at Hardoi), Raj Kumar Singh,

ADJ Lucknow, Pradeep Kumar Singh­II,  Addl. Director, JTRI,

Lucknow,  Anupam Kumar,  ADJ,  Kanpur  Nagar,   Smt.  Babita

Rani, ADJ, Saharanpur and Ashish Garg, ADJ, Raebareli, raises

almost similar objections as raised by aforesaid DRs officers and

for the reasons stated above the same also stand rejected. 

68. Some of the officers in LCE namely,  Sri Ashok Kumar, Sri

Brijesh Kumar Mishra  and  Sri Amar Pal Singh  have contended

that   they   should   be   given   seniority   in   the   concerned   year   of

Recruitment.   These   officers   have   been   assigned   seniority   with

reference to date of appointment in HJS, by applying Rule 26 and

we do not find any infirmity therein.

69. Some of the officers have raised objections which we have

already dealt with in our earlier reports but, still objections have

been repeated. While giving notice to concerned officers, inviting

objections to our final seniority list 2015, we made it clear that no

representationist   shall   repeat  a  ground which  has  already  been

taken, considered and decided. Therefore,  we have not touched

those grounds/objections which are simply repetitions of  earlier

representations dealt with in earlier reports.

70. Sri Alok Kumar Trivedi, OSD, Infrastructure, High Court has

claimed seniority over officers placed at serial no. 1008 to 1027 in

tentative seniority report­II i.e. 18.12.2014. Para 171 of FSR 2015

deals with the case of the case of Sri Trivedi as under:

“171. Sri Alok Kumar Trivedi has represented that the

officers  at  Serial  No.  1008 and 1027  in  TSR­II  dated

18.12.2014 should not have been placed above him since

38

they passed second suitability test. These officers actually

have passed first suitability test but earlier due to wrong

calculation   of   vacancies   they  were   required   to   appear

again in second suitability test. This aspect has already

been   considered   by   us   in   our   second   TSR­II   dated

18.12.2014 and those who have passed first suitability

test in 2008 and could get vacancy within Recruitment

Year 2007 they have been assigned seniority accordingly.

Sri Alok Kumar Trivedi has failed (since did not appear)

in   first   suitability   test,   therefore,   cannot   be   claimed

parity   therewith.   Therefore,   his   representation   is

rejected.”

71. In FSR 2015, Sri Alok Kumar Trivedi is at serial no. 1078,

having   been   appointed   in   Recruitment   2009.   He   is   claiming

seniority over officers whose names find place at serial no. 1008 to

1027.   These   20   officers   got   appointment   in   2007   Recruitment

while   Sri   Alok   Kumar   Trivedi   got   appointment   in   Recruitment

2009, reason being that he did not appear in eligibility test of 2008

and hence, could not get appointment  in Recruitment 2007. He

could   pass   eligibility   test   in   2009   and   hence,   has   been   given

seniority in Recruitment 2009 from the date of his appointment.

We do not find any infirmity in the order of seniority assigned to

him.

72. One Sri  Gopal Kulshrestha  has claimed restoration of  his

seniority along with his juniors. He raised a similar claim earlier

also which was considered in para 255 & 256 of our report dated

14.07.2011 which read as under:

“255. Sri Gopal Kulshrestha,  a member of UPNS was

considered   for   ad   hoc   promotion   vide   selection

committee's report dated 18.04.2001 and on the basis of

39

service record including a warning administered to him,

vide A.C. report dated 16.04.1998, he was not found fit

for   promotion.  During   the   aforesaid   period  his   record

from  1995­1996 to 1999­2000  was considered. Again

in   the   next   year   his   service   record   from  1996­97   to

2000­2001  was   considered   and   the  Court   found  him

unfit for promotion observing as under:

"The   five   years   relevant   period   in   his   case   now

commences from 1996­97. In the year 2000­01 the

Court   found  him   interpolating  his  Daily   Sittings

Register on 29.6.2001 by stating to the effect that

at the time of   inspection he was found absent  in

chamber as well as in Court at 6.45 AM although

he had made entries  in his Daily Sitting Register

showing the usual of sitting in chamber and court.

Also considered his representation dated 1.2.2002.

Hence not found fit for promotion."

It is pointed out that adverse entry for 2000­2001

to the following effect was subsequently expunged in A.C.

Meeting dated 20.08.2002: 

"Later on he made cuttings and overwriting in dailysitting register of 29.06.2001".

256. In 2003 he (Sri Gopal Kulshrestha) was again

considered for ad hoc promotion on the basis of last five

years   entries  and was  approved   for  ad hoc  promotion

vide   Court's   resolution   dated   22.03.2003   and   was

subsequently promoted on ad hoc basis under Rule 22(3)

by order dated 30.04.2003. He therefore would not get

advantage   of   restoration   of   his   place   above   the

juniors  and would get seniority subject to availabili1ty

40

of   vacancy   within   quota   and   from   the   date   of   his

appointment, in accordance with rules.”

73. His   submission   that   adverse   entry   of   2000­2001   was

expunged, is not correct inasmuch as only a small part thereof was

expunged   in   Administrative   Committee's   meeting   dated

20.08.2002. This has already been taken note of by Committee in

the aforesaid report. His similar representation was also considered

and rejected vide para 160 of FSR 2015. The officer untiringly has

made a third attempt, raising similar pleas which has to fail. The

representation is rejected.

74. We have also received recently a representation from one Sri

Sanjay Kumar Goel, a retired officer, claiming that he should be

assigned seniority over Sri Sukh Lal who is at serial no. 471 in

seniority   list   2015.   This   officer   was   not   appointed   under   Rule

22(1) till we prepared FSR 2015, hence, was not placed/assigned

seniority in HJS. Now, recently on 01.03.2016, State Government

has notified appointment of Sri Sanjay Kumar Goel in HJS w.e.f.

03.02.1999   on   notional   basis.   This   officer   has   retired   on

31.10.2014.  In  view of  aforesaid change of  events and notional

promotion   granted   by   State   Government   w.e.f   03.02.1999,   we

recommend placement of this officer in seniority list of HJS, just

above Sri Sukh Lal at serial no. 470A. His seniority shall reckon

w.e.f.   03.02.1999.   We   also   recommend   creation   of   a

supernumerary post for this officer for the period from 03.02.1999

till 31.10.2014 (date of his retirement).

75. The objection raised by following UPNS officers are similar to

that of Sri Rajiv Goyal. Representations of these officers also stand

rejected  for   the  reasons  stated above.  These officers  are  S/Sri

Pawan   Kumar   Chaurasia,   A.D.J.   Shahjanpur,   Neeraj   Kumar

Sangal, Law Officer, UPHRC, Lucknow, Nand Lal, ADJ, Jalaun

41

at   Orai,   Shashi   Mauli   Tiwari,   HJS,   A.D.J.,   Chitrakoot,

Nisamuddin, A.D.J., Deoria, Sadhna Rani Thakur, A.D.J.Deoria,

Jai Krishna Tewari, A.D.J. Sultanpur, Anil Kumar Gupta, ADJ,

Mathura, Amerika Singh, Joint Secy. Law, UPPSC, Allahabad,

Kamla  Singh  Yadav,  ADJ,  Hardoi,   Prem Kumar  Singh,  ADJ,

Sultanpur, Krishna Kant Pandey, ADJ, Aligarh, Mohd. Aslam,

ADJ,   Varanasi,   Syed   Sarwat   Mahmood,   Chairman,   Waqf,

Tribulnal, Lucknow, Naseer Ahmad­II, ADJ, Hardoi, Surendra

Pal Singh, Spl.Sec./Addl. L.R., Govt. of U.P., Lucknow, Piyush

Chandra Srivastava, Special Sec. (Law)/Addl. LR, Govt. of U.P.,

Lucknow,   Harihar   Prasad   Yadav,   ADJ,   Hardoi,   Tej   Bahadur

Singh,   Principal   Judge   Family   Court,   Muzaffar   Nagar,   Syed

Aftab Husain Rizvi, A.D.J., Lucknow, Arun Kumar Misra, HJS,

Legal Advisor, LDA, Lucknow, Umesh Chandra Sharma, ADJ,

Meerut,   Akhilesh   Kumar   Tiwari,   ADJ,   Raebareli,   Sarvesh

Kumar,  ADJ,  Ambedkar  Nagar,  Mukteshwar  Prasad­II,   Legal

Advisor,   UP   Excise   Commissioner,   Allahabad,   Ajai   Kumar

Srivastava­I, ADJ, Sonbhadra, Naveen Srivastava, ADJ, Kanpur

Dehat, Dinesh Kumar Singh­II,ADJ, Unnao, Krishna Kumar­IV,

ADJ, Gorakhpur, Ashok Kumar Mishra, ADJ, Mirzapur, Vishesh

Sharma, ADJ, Mirzapur, Vinod Kumar Srivastava­IV, Babu lal

Kesarwani,   ADJ,   Lucknow,   Anil   Kumar   Upadhyay,   Spl.

Judge(D.A.A.)   Jalaun   at   Orai,   Satya   Prakash   Tripathi,   Spl.

Judge,   Ghaziabad,   Mukesh   Prakash,   ADJ,   Bulandshahr,

Chandra   Mauli   Shukla,   Spl.Secy./Addl.   L.R.   Govt.   of   U.P.,

Lucknow. Anil Kumar Ojha, Spl.Secy./Addl. L.R. Govt. of U.P.,

Lucknow,  Ghan Shyam Pathak,  Spl.Secy./Addl.  L.R.  Govt.  of

U.P., Lucknow, Upendra Kumar, ADJ, Ghazipur, Faridul Haq,

Spl.   Judge,   Kanpur   Nagar,   Rajendra   Chand,   ADJ,   Kanpur

Nagar, Shanti Prakash Arvind, Principal Judge, Family Court,

Barabanki, Krishna Kumar Asthana, ADJ, Banda and Ms. Renu

42

Aagarwal, ADJ, Varanasi.

76. So far as representation of  Sri Pawan Kumar Tiwari, ADJ,

Ghaziabad   is   concerned,   it   may   be   observed   that   this   is   very

unfortunate that the officer having recruited in HJS in subsequent

batch   and   the   present   seniority   list   is   confined   upto   the

Recruitment 2009, still  he has moved representation. Therefore,

we do not find any cause of action for this officer to raise objection

in the seniority list prepared upto Recruitment 2009.

77. One Sri R.N. Pandey, ADJ, Kaushambi has only prayed for

affording opportunity of oral hearing which was granted to this

officer.   He   could   not   point   out   anything   substantial   so   as   to

warrant any alteration.

78. Now we may also refer to some of the judgments/ judicial

precedents   which   have   been   relied   on   by   officers   in   general,

though we do not find that they have any application in respect of

disputes with which we are confronted in these matters.

79. One of the decisions relied on is  Ramesh Kumar Vs. High

Court of Delhi, 2010(3) SCC 104,  to suggest that some directly

recruited officers who have been appointed in December, 2011 and

January, 2012 should not and cannot be assigned seniority from

retrospective   date,   i.e.,   date   on   which   their   batch­mates   were

appointed. Ramesh Kumar applied for appointment in the cadre of

District   Judge   in   Delhi   claiming   appointment   against   vacancies

reserved   for   scheduled   castes.   There   were   three   vacancies   in

reserved  quota  but  High  Court  declared  only  one   selected   and

Ramesh   Kumar   and   another   were   declared   unsuitable   on   the

ground   that   they   did   not   secure   required   minimum   marks   in

interview.   Court   found   that   there   was   a   midway   change   in

selection which was not permissible. Under the existing provisions

for selection, a candidate was required to secure only 45% while

Ramesh Kumar secured 46.2% marks in aggregate. Court directed

43

for appointment of Ramesh Kumar but no relief was granted to

another   candidate,   Desh   Raj   Chalia   who   had   failed   to   secure

required marks in aggregate. A further clarification was given in

the judgment itself that Ramesh Kumar shall not be entitled to get

any seniority or any other perks and perquisite on the basis of his

notional entitlement. Service benefits shall be given to him from

the date of his appointment. Here was not a case where despite

selection   and  entitlement   for   appointment,  Ramesh  Kumar  was

denied appointment due to an interim order passed on judicial side

in a writ  petition challenging his selection.  In our case ten DRs

who   got   appointments   in   December,   2011/January   2012   were

delayed not because of their own reason or that Court took a view

that   they   were   not   selected.   Instead,   they   were   selected   and

available   for   appointment.   Promottee   officers   through   their

association   challenged   selection   on   the  ground   that   number  of

actual vacancies within quota of DRs was less than that for which

Recruitment was made. To consider this ground, during pendency

of writ petition, an interim order was passed, staying appointment

of these very officers. We, therefore, have relied on the authority of

Dr. A.R. Sircar (supra).

80. We also find that a similar view has been taken in Surendra

Narain Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, 1998(5)

SCC 246. It was a matter related to Recruitment of Bihar Judicial

Service.  Court  held   that   appointment  of   candidates,   if  delayed,

because of some misconception of law for which these candidates

are not to be blamed, they would be entitled to seniority alongwith

their batch­mates and persons getting appointment subsequently

cannot take benefit of delayed appointment of such candidates. 

81. The above view taken in  Surendra Narain Singh (supra)

has been noticed subsequently in Pawan Pratap Singh and others

Vs. Reevan Singh and others, 2011(3) SCC 267 and in para 28

44

Court has observed as under:

“Considering a similar situation, this Court, in SurendrfaNarain Singh Vs. State of Bihar held that candidates whowere selected against earlier vacancies but who could notbe appointed along with others of the same batch due tocertain   technical   difficulties,   when     appointedsubsequently,  will   have   to   be   placed   above   those  whowere appointed against subsequent vacancies." 

82. In State of UP Vs. Rafiquddin AIR 1988 SC 162, there was

dispute   relating   members   of   UPNS   whose   Recruitment   and

appointment  in  UPNS is  made only through direct  Recruitment.

Waiting list was applied repeatedly even to subsequent vacancies.

This was not appreciated by Court. It was observed that a system

should  be   followed by  Court  in    making  appointments,   so   that

candidates   selected   in   subsequent   examination   should   not   be

appointed   earlier   to   those   selected   in   earlier   examination,   and

every effort should be made to  appoint successful candidates  of a

particular   examination   before   any   candidate   of   a   subsequent

examination is appointed. In our view, the aforesaid judgment has

no application to present dispute. 

83. With   respect   to   service   rendered   in  Fast  Track  Court,   the

judgment in  Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India & others 2002

(5)  SCC 1 and Brij  Mohan Lal  Vs.  Union of   India  & others

(2012)   6   SCC   502=(2012)5   SCR   305  was   referred.   Therein

Court had clearly said that no right will be conferred on judicial

officers in service for rendering service in Fast Track Courts and

will be deemed as service rendered in the parent cadre. However,

in  case  any Judicial  Officer   is  promoted to  higher  grade  in   the

parent   cadre   during   his   tenure   in   Fast   Track   Courts,   service

rendered in Fast Track Courts will be deemed to be service in such

higher grade. It only clarified that the very fact that a member of

HJS even after his selection and appointment in HJS, if posted in

45

Fast Track Court,  that would not deprive him benefit  of  service

rendered in Fast Track Court, for the reason that he has already

become member of HJS and the mere fact that he has rendered

service in Fast Track Court, such service cannot be ignored for the

purpose of seniority etc. This aspect we have already dealt with in

our   earlier   reports   and   nothing   new   has   been   brought   to   our

notice.

84. It is contended that retrospective effect given to Recruitment

Rules published on 09.01.2007 w.e.f. 21.03.2002 is not justified

and   that   should   be   ignored.   We   are   informed   that   validity   of

retrospective   amendment  of   rules  was   challenged  by   individual

members of UPNS promoted in HJS, in    Writ Petition (Civil) no.

206 of 2007 V.K. Srivastava & ors. Vs. Govt.of U.P. and another

AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1032.  The said writ petition was dismissed

as  withdrawn  on   04.09.2008  without  prejudice   to   the   right   of

petitioners to seek other appropriate remedy with regard to their

seniority.

85. There was another writ petition filed by U.P. Judicial Service

Association i.e. Writ Petition No. 236 of 2007 connected with  V.K.

Srivastava & ors (supra).  Therein also grievance of  petitioners

was that Rules should not be given retrospective effect since it has

seriously prejudiced rights of petitioners. It was further argued that

vacancies which had arisen prior to 21.03.2002 should have been

filled up on the basis of unamended Rules and Recruitment which

has   taken  placed  based  on  amended  Rules  has   affected   vested

rights of petitioners. Court, however, rejected aforesaid argument

noticing the fact that High Court has made Recruitment in 2008.

Court observed that going by information furnished by High Court

regarding aforesaid selection of 2008, it is satisfied that Rules have

been complied with.

86. In  the present  case,   for   the purpose of  seniority,  we have

46

considered   distinctly   vacanies   which   had   occurred   upto

20.03.2002 and those which occurred on and after  21.03.2002.

Therefore,  even grievance which was raised  in writ  petition no.

236   of   2007   has   been   taken   care   of.   This   grievance   that

retrospective   amendment   of   Rules   should   not   be   acted   upon,

cannot be accepted, since, legislation made has to be acted upon,

implemented and followed as it is.

87. On behalf of  UPNS,  B.S. Mathur & Another  vs  Union Of

India & others, AIR 2009 SC 137  has been relied in support of

proposition that those who have been appointed later, should not

be given march over earlier appointees and continuous length of

service should be recognized. The aforesaid matter related to inter

se seniority dispute of HJS in Delhi. Direction contained in para 27

and 22 have been relied on, but we find that those directions are

confined   to  Delhi  Higher   Judicial  Service  Rules.   In   the  present

case,  we  have   complied  with  1975  Rules  applicable   in  UPHJS.

Aforesaid  judgment does not help representationists of  UPNS in

any manner.

88. Vijay   Singh   Charak   Vs.   Union   of   India   and   other   III

(2007)   SLT   723  has   also   been   relied   on   by   Sri   Rajiv   Goyal

(UPNS).   We   find   nothing   therein   which   may   help   said

representationist.   The   matter   therein   related   to   clubbing   of

vacancies of different years of Recruitment in Indian Forest Service

of J. & K. cadre. The Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules,

1965, was considered and it was held that in an earlier judgment

in Union Of India & Ors vs Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah 1996 (6)

SCC   721  preparation   of   select   list   in   every   year   was   held

mandatory   and   clubbing   of   vacancies   of   different   Recruitment

years is not justified as it results in considering eligible candidates

of different years to be considered against such vacancies for which

they may not be eligible. In paras 11, 12, 13 & 14, Court has said

47

as under:

“11. However, the dicisions in S.H. Kasturi Rangan andNepal Singh Tanwat (supra) do not, in our opinion, dealwith   the   other   principle   laid   down   in   the   decision   inUnion  of   India  v.  Vipinchandra  Hiralal  Shah (supra),wherein it has been stated that the Selection Committeeshould prepare a separate Select List for each year. In ouropinion,   this   means   that   there   cannot   be   clubbing   ofvacancies of several years and there cannot be a commonSelect list for these years. 

12. A Select List  can only be prepared for a particularyear, and only those who are eligible in that particularyear alone can be considered for selection in the SelectList. Even if the Select List is not prepared in that veryyear, it will relate back to that particular year. 

13. In the present case, a Select List had to be preparedfor   the  year  1991.Hence,  only   those  officers  who wereeligible for induction into the IFS in the year 1991 couldhave been considered in the Select List for the year 1991(even if it is prepared subsequent to 1991). 

14. It is obvious, therefore, that clubbing is illegal. Sinceclubbing   has   been   done   for   vacancies   arising   between1991­95 in the IFS, this was clearly illegal in view of thedecision in Union of India v. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah(supra). 

89. Here,   there   is   no   question   of   clubbing   of   vacancies   of

different   years   of   Recruitment   and   it   appears   that   officer

concerned has failed to understand it.

90. The concept of batch wise seniority etc. was considered by a

five Judges Bench of this Court in K.N. Singh and others Vs. State

of U.P.(supra). In paras 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 the Court has

said as under:

“18.   The   committee   finalised   the   seniority   after   firstascertaining the substantive vacancies in the permanentand temporary posts and thereafter the quota rules had

48

been applied in accordance with the various recruitmentsmade by the Court and the seniority in between the directrecruits and the promotees was fixed in accordance withRule 26 (1) (e) of the 1975 Rules. The promotees weregiven the benefit of continuous officiation from the datewhen a substantive vacancy in a particular permanent ortemporary post was made available in their quota whilethe direct recruits were given seniority from the dates oftheir   joining  the   service  according   to   their  quota.  Thecommittee had finalised the list for 597 officers only. Theother   officers   who   have   been   subsequentlypromoted/appointed   had   been   excluded   fromconsideration   of   the   determination   of   seniority   as   theappointments of direct recruits of 1988 batch were notreceived   till   the   date   of   the   report   of   the   Committee.Approach of   the committee  has  been challenged  in  theinstant writ petitions, and it was urged on behalf of thepetitioners   that  seniority  could not have been delinkedfrom the quota­and­rota rules and reliance was placed onthe observation of the Supreme Court in paragraph 29 ofthe judgment in O.P. Garg's case (AIR 1991 SC 1202).The lines that were read out time and again before us inparagraph   29   were   "The   seniority   in   service   isconsequential   and   dependent   on   appointment.   If   therecruitment   rules   give   unjustifiable   preference   to   onesource   of   recruitment,   the   seniority   rule   is   bound   tobecome unworkable". It was stated that this observationshould be read as a direct pointer to read Rules 26 alongwith Rule 22 of the 1975 Rules. The Rules have alreadybeen quoted. Rule 22 requires that the Court is to submita list of the candidates for appointment in the H.J.S. andthe Governor is to act upon that list and Rule 22 sets outthe rotation in which the appointments are to be madefrom different sources.  Rule 26 speaks of seniority andthis rule does not make any reference to the question ofrota, that is, the rotation in the matter of appointment.This rule stood the scrutiny of the Supreme Court lastlyin O.P. Garg's  case (AIR 1991 SC 1202) and Rule 22was,  also very  much before   the  Apex Court.  The  Apex

49

Court had struck down certain provisions of Rule 22 butthe provision for appointment in rotation was retainedand not disturbed.  Even thereafter,  the Supreme Courthad explained Rule 26 only to the extent that while thedirect   recruits   would   have   the   right   to   count   theirseniority from the date of appointment, there would be aconcession in counting the date for a promotee who willbe   entitled   to   count   his   seniority   from   the   date   ofcontinuous officiation when a substantive  vacancy wasmade available in his quota in terms of the 1975 Rules.The   observation   in   paragraph   29   that   seniority   isconsequential to appointment, was to be read in the lightof   the  directions  given  after   the   said  observation.  TheRules provided that the appointments against temporaryvacancies could be made only from one source and thatwas found violative of the principles of equal opportunityand was struck down. Had the Supreme Court  desiredthat Rule 26 should be read with Rule 22 and senioritywould   be   counted   in   terms   of   the   appointment,   theSupreme Court would have spelt it out. In the absence ofany such speaking order, the mere observation, as quotedabove, could not be read as a direction to count seniorityaccording to appointment. If we take this interpretation,as urged by the promotees, then in effect Rule 26 wouldbecome nugatory. These rules being statutory in nature,it is not open for us to interpret that any particular rulewas superfluous. The matter may be looked from anotherangle as well. Rule 22 speaks of manner of appointmentand   the   appointments   are   to   be   made   according   toselection made by the High Court and the selections areto follow notification of vacancy according to quota. Rule8 prescribes what would be the number of appointmentsand in fixing that number, the Court is to keep in viewthe vacancy then existing and those likely to occur in thenext two years. The term "then" must be interpreted tomean   the   date   when   the   Court   fixes   the   number   ofvacancies.   Thus,  whenever   the  number   of   vacancies   isdetermined or fixed by the Court for appointment, notonly   the   existing   vacancies   were   to   be   kept   in

50

consideration but the vacancies likely to occur would alsobe   considered.   It   is   quite   possible   that   those   likelyvacancies   might   not   actually   occur   "till   the   date   ofselection and as such, appointments would be made onlyagainst   the   existing   vacancies   and   then   against   thoselikely vacancies when they actually fall vacant from timeto time. Thus, there could be a situation that even for asingle selection, the appointments may be made one afteranother   and   not   all   at   a   time.   That   is   precisely   theprovision   of   Rule   4   of   the   1975   Rules,   It   is   for   theGovernor to make the appointment and Rule 4 empowersthe Governor to leave unfilled or to hold in abeyance anyvacancy in the services without entitling any person tocompensation.  The   right  of  a  particular   individual   forany   appointment   may   go   to   the   extent   of   beingconsidered but none can claim that he must be appointedagainst a post and although selected, it is still open forthe Governor not to appoint a person at a particular timeand keep  the post  vacant  for some future contingency.Appointment   is   to be made under  Rule  22  in rotationfrom   different   sources.   But   this   appointment   has   nobearing with the rule of seniority for which Rule 26 alonewould be the guiding factor. For fixing seniority, a directrecruit has only one date available to him, and that isneither   the  date  when the  vacancy  arose nor   the  datewhen   it  was  notified  nor   even   the  date  when  he  wasselected. He must be satisfied with the date of his actualappointment for reckoning his seniority, and there is nodeeming provision to reckon his seniority from any dateearlier   to   his   date   of   appointment,   i.e.,   the   date   ofjoining. For a promotee, however, normally the date ofappointment on promotion should have been the date ofhis seniority unless some benefit is given to him by theRules   or   by   any   interpretation   of   the   privilege   ofcontinuous  officiation.  Fortunately,   for  a  promotee   therule is clear so far the H.J.S. is concerned. He has theright to have his seniority counted not from the date ofhis actual joining on promotion but from the date whena substantive vacancy occurs in his quota according to

51

the 1975 Rules.19. In the course of arguments, it was urged on behalf ofthe petitioners how these quota rules were disobeyed ingiving appointment and in a supplementary affidavit filedby­ one of the direct recruits who spoke on behalf of allthe direct recruits to say that they were entitled to countthe  date   of   seniority   from  the  date  when   the   vacancyarose in their quota. This interpretation cannot be givento Rule 26 and the direct recruits cannot reckon seniorityfrom any date prior to their actual joining. Even in thataffidavit, it was conceded on facts that the first 27 officersin the list stood senior to even the first direct recruit inthe list. The present writ petitions have a limited scope asonly seniority list has been challenged and that too in thelight   of   the   decision   in   O.P.   Garg's   case.   There   is   nochallenge   to   the   number   of   vacancies   that   have   beencounted   by   the   selection   committee   nor   even   anychallenge  has  been   thrown  to   the  vires  of   the   existingRules. We are, therefore, unable to look into the theoriesattacking   the   appointments   or   promotions   or   thecounting of vacancies by the committee. 

20. In the light of the above 'interpretation of Rules 22and 26 and in the light of our observation that Rule 26must be read independent of Rule 22 for fixing seniority,we may now analyse the report of the committee. 

21.   In   the   earlier   paragraphs   of   this   judgment(paragraph 16 onwards), we have indicated what werethe norms settled by the Five Judges Committee towardsfixation   of   seniority   and   we   had   also   indicated   theenormity  of   the   task  of   the   committee   to   reenact  andexercise that was performed 16 years prior to their takingup the matter. The finding could not be interfered with onJudicial scrutiny even though there was no violation ofthe  norms and   the  best  possible  attempt  was  made  tosolve the impasse and to reach a result to fix the seniorityin   the   H.J.S.   No   doubt,   the   guiding   factor   for   thecommittee also was the direction of the Supreme Courtgiven in the case of O.P. Garg (AIR 1991 SC 1202). The

52

committee could have taken all the 263 officers workingon 5.4.1975 as persons belonging to the service as thequestion was dealt with by the Supreme Court and thefacility  was   given  only   to  236  officers  and  not   to   theothers. For the remaining 27, the clear dictum was thatthey were to be considered in terms of 1975 Rules. Thecommittee  was   therefore,   right   in   its  approach   in   thisregard and in rejecting claim of the promotees. As regardsthe  availability  of   the  vacancy   for   the  posts   for  whichthese 27 officers (263 minus 236) were we must againsupport the approach of the committee in  treating themas temporary substantive vacancies on the ground of longpendency of   the deputations.  The committee  again hadrightly   delinked   the   question   of   seniority   from   thequestion   of   promotion   and   appointment,   as   has   beenclarified by us in this judgment in interpreting Rules 22and 26 of the 1975 Rules. We have found that the linesin paragraph 29 of the judgment in O.P. Garg's case (AIR1991 SC 1202)  "the seniority in service is consequentialand dependent on appointment" could be read only as aprelude to the direction given next thereto, that is, onlyfor declaring Rules 22 (3) and 22 (4) to be ultra vires.We also find that the committee had rightly opined thatas  per   the   terms  of   the   language of  Rule  26,  a  directrecruit   could   never   date   back   his   seniority   to   anyarbitrary date prior to his joining the service. We feel thatthe committee had rightly observed that a direct recruitcannot claim seniority from a date before his birth in theservice. 

22. Much emphasis was given on the alleged deprivationof the direct recruits, as according to them the persons of1976 batch were made junior to promotees for whom avacancy was available long after the 1975 selections. Areading   of   the   List­B   attached   to   the   report   of   thecommittee which is precisely the seniority list now underchallenge, shows that meticulous care had been taken bythe committee to indicate as to when a particular vacancywas made available in the quota of a promotee and the

53

learned   counsel   for   the  High  Court   very  painstakinglyindicated before us that  for deciding the availability ofquota, the committee had kept in mind the rota rule andin doing so the best possible exercise was made by thecommittee to fix the seniority amongst the H.J.S. officerin terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court. We findsufficient force in this argument of the learned counsel forthe administrative side of the High Court. 

23. For all the reasons stated above, we are of the viewthat the committee was required to make the seniority listin   terms   of   the   judgment   of   the   Supreme   Court.   Apractical and correct interpretation to the term "vacancymade   available   in   the   quota"   has   been   given   by   thecommittee.  A   right  approach  was  made   to  de­link   thequestion of appointment on rotation from the question offixation of seniority and we find no reason to interferewith   the   suggestions  of   the   committee  or   the   resultantseniority list now under challenge.”

91. State of Uttaranchal Vs Dinesh Kumar Sharma (2007) 1

SCC 683 was a case where dispute with regard to determination of

seniority in a cadre which was to be filled in by Direct Recruitment

as well as promotion was involved. Seniority was determined in

accordance with U.P. Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991. It

was claimed that seniority should be determined with reference to

year in which vacancies occurred which was not consistent with

Rules, hence, not accepted. Rule 8 of seniority Rules provided that

date  of   substantive  appointment   shall   be  date   for   reckoning  of

seniority and Court held that same has to be adhered to.

92. Let   final   seniority   list   and  other  attending  documents  are

being appended to this report which may be read in continuation

of   earlier   Final   Seniority   List   2015   and   this   report   and   its

enclosures shall be read along with FSR 2015.

93. Broadly   the   objections   as   also   the   case   laws   relied   by

54

representationists have been dealt with herein above substantially

and   we   do   not   find   any   force   therein.   Hence,   subject   to   the

modification as stated in paras 33 to 36 and 74, which we have

given effect to in seniority list, no change has been made in FSR

2015. This report shall form part and parcel of FSR 2015 but since

minor   corrections   as   noted   above   have   been   made,   we   are

submitting updated seniority list and other related documents as

under:

1. Final Seniority Report­20152. Annexure­A: Seniority List­19923. Annexure­B: Vacancy calculation, chart and its allocation for

1988   Recruitment   and   allocation   of   five   vacancies   arisingw.e.f. 16.05.1984 to  30.04.1984 to five  DRs of 1978 & 1982recruitment years though appointed with delay.

4. Annexure­B1: Vacancy calculation, chart and its allocation for1990 Recruitment 

5. Annexure­B2: Vacancy calculation, chart and its allocation for1992­1994 Recruitment 

6. Annexure­B3: Vacancy calculation, chart and its allocation for1998­2000 Recruitment 

7. Annexure­C: Seniority List – 2011 (Revised)8. Annexure­D: Vacancy calculation, chart and its allocation for

2007 Recruitment9. List   of   DRs   from   Bar   working   under   Rule   22   (1)   as   on

09.11.200610. Annexure­D1: Vacancy calculation, chart and its allocation for

2009 Recruitment 11. Annexure­E: Seniority List – 2015 (2007 & 2009 Recruitment)12. Annexure­F:Complete   vacancy   chart   and   its   allocation

including initial cadre officers13. Annexure­G:Complete   exhaustive   seniority   list   including

initial cadre officers till 2009 Recruitment14. Annexure­H:Complete   exhaustive   seniority   list   including

initial cadre officers till 2009 Recruitment (Alphabetical)

(Justice Sudhir Agarwal)             (Justice Vimlesh Kumar Shukla)

(Justice Pankaj Naqvi)                    (Justice B. Amit Sthalekar)