2014 (9) TMI 1245 - HC - Indian Laws

Inter se dispute between the direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Assistant Consolidation Officer - it has been argued by the appellants' counsel that the direct recruits are entitled to be placed over and above the promotees since they were appointed earlier than the promotees, i.e. in the month of August, 1997 - HELD THAT - Sub Rule (3) of Rule 8 of 1991 Seniority Rules should be construed in such a manner which may not make the rule inoperative. Further external aid from 1992 Service Rules may be taken while interpreting 1991 Seniority Rules for removal of ambiguity and doubt, if any - the provisions contained in Sub Rule (3) of Rule 8 should be construed harmoniously to make it effective after taking into account the other rules as well as the purpose and object of the rule. Since selection and promotion has not been done in a single process, seniority may be considered as observed hereinabove keeping in view the year of recruitment. The impugned order passed by learned Single Judge does not seem to suffer from any impropriety or illegality subject to modification that keeping in view the Service Rules in question, rota should be applied by the authorities of direct recruits and promotees appointed in one recruitment year - Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inter se seniority dispute between direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Assistant Consolidation Officer under the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991.
2. Interpretation and application of Rule 8 of the 1991 Seniority Rules.
3. Validity of en-block placement of promotees over direct recruits as ordered by the learned Single Judge.
4. Applicability of the cyclic order for determining seniority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inter se Seniority Dispute:
The primary issue revolves around the inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Assistant Consolidation Officer. The direct recruits were appointed on 18.8.1997, whereas the promotees were promoted on 16.12.1997 within their quota under the U.P. Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992. The appellants argued that direct recruits should be placed above promotees since they were appointed earlier. Conversely, the respondents contended that both groups were appointed in the same recruitment year, and the promotees should be placed above direct recruits as per the rules.

2. Interpretation and Application of Rule 8 of the 1991 Seniority Rules:
Rule 8 of the 1991 Seniority Rules governs seniority where appointments are made by both promotion and direct recruitment. Sub Rule (1) states that seniority is determined from the date of the order of substantive appointments. Sub Rule (3) specifies that when appointments are made from both sources in one selection, seniority should follow a cyclic order based on the prescribed quota. The court emphasized that this rule must be interpreted harmoniously with the 1992 Service Rules, which define the recruitment year and mandate combined lists for appointments from both sources.

3. Validity of En-block Placement of Promotees:
The learned Single Judge's order directed en-block placement of all promotees over direct recruits, which the appellants challenged. The court found this approach contrary to the rules, which require a cyclic order for seniority determination. The court modified the Single Judge's order, stating that the roster system must be applied in accordance with the cyclic order, ensuring a fair and rule-compliant seniority list.

4. Applicability of the Cyclic Order:
The cyclic order, as per Rule 8(3), requires alternating placements of promotees and direct recruits based on the quota. The court clarified that this rule should be applied to appointments made within the same recruitment year, as defined by the 1992 Rules. The court rejected the argument that the rule applies only when appointments are made in one selection process, recognizing the practical impossibility of simultaneous selection for both sources.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the 1991 Seniority Rules, particularly Rule 8(3), must be interpreted in conjunction with the 1992 Service Rules to ensure a fair and effective seniority determination. The impugned order by the learned Single Judge was modified to mandate the application of the cyclic order for seniority determination within the same recruitment year. The appeal was allowed in part, ensuring compliance with the prescribed rules and maintaining the integrity of the seniority determination process.