Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46445-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 7 of 2022 Appellant :- Vikram Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Its Pri. Secry.,Revenue Deptt.,Civil Secrt.Lko And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- S.P. Singh Somvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Heard. 2. This is an intra-court appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 06.12.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.16855 (S/S) of 2020 [Vikram Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] by which the petition of the appellant has been dismissed. 3. In the writ petition, the petitioner had sought the following reliefs:- "I. To Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 07/09/2020 passed by the respondent No.-1 rejected the grievances/representation of the petitioner annexed as Annexure No.-1 to this writ petition. II. To Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties, to prepare the एकल वररषतत ससचच (State level) from the Junior Assistant to Administrative Officer or next higher posts. III. Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. IV. Allow the writ petition with cost. " 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed heavy reliance upon the fact that U.P. District Officers (Collectorate) Ministerial Service Rules, 1980 (in short 'the Rules, 1980') as amended in 2011 were superseded by the rules known as U.P. Government Ministerial Cadre Service Rules, 2014 (in short 'the Rules, 2014'). He has referred to Rules 19(4), 21(3) and 24 of the Rules, 2014. He submitted that for facilitating promotion of Head Assistants to the next higher post of Administrative Officer, Senior Administrative Officer and Chief Administrative Officer, a State level seniority from the post of Junior Assistant to Administrative Officer is required to be prepared. placed heavy reliance upon Rule 6 of the U.P. Government Service (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1991, according to which, when promotions are made from single feeding cadre, the seniority in the feeding cadre stands restored on such promotion. 5. On the other hand, Sri Raj Kumar Dwivedi, Senior A.D.M., Officer on Special duty, Board of Revenue is present in Court. He has referred to Rule, 22 of the Rules, 1980 and Rule 22 of the amendment of 2011, according to which, seniority in the service/ cadre is to be determined district wise. He submitted that the post of Head Assistant being occupied by the appellant-petitioner and the next promotional post of Administrative Officer are district level posts. He submitted that though the aforesaid rules were superseded by the subsequent Rules of 2014 but these subsequent rules of 2014 do not contain anything contrary to the earlier rules so far as determination of seniority on the aforesaid post at district level is concerned. In this context, he relies upon a Government Order dated 30.01.2025, according to which, the Rules, 2014 supersede the earlier rules only so far as the subject dealt with under the Rules, 2014 is concerned, meaning thereby, the subjects and service conditions which are not dealt with under the Rules, 2014, in that regard, the earlier rules will continue to apply. As regards application of Rule 6 of the Rules, 1991 he and learned Standing Counsel submitted that it is not Rule 6 but Rule 7 which will apply for preparation of seniority to the post of Senior Administrative Officer and Chief Administrative Officer for the reason the post of Senior Administrative Officer and Chief Administrative Officer are State level cadres, the eligibility list for promotion the post of Senior Administrative Officer is prepared from the eligible Administrative Officer which is a district level cadre. Each cadre in a district is treated as a separate cadre, therefore, Rule 7 will apply as it is taken that though the appointment is made solely by promotion but from different cadres existing in each district where the cadre of Administrative Officer exists. It is also submitted that for preparation of the eligibility list, the date of appointment of the Administrative Officer in the respective district is taken for placing them in proper seriatim considering the number of post and the zone of consideration. The cadre of the Head Assistant and the Administrative Officer which is a promotion post is a district level cadre. Ordinarily, the posts are non-transferable as informed by learned C.S.C., though on request, such transfer could be made to another district but in such an eventuality, the transferree would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the opposite parties as also the officers present, there is no dispute about the fact that the post of Head Assistant and Administrative Officer i.e. the next promotional post are district level cadres, in fact, learned counsel for the appellant accepted this factual position and there is nothing on record to show that cadre of Head Assistant and Administrative Officer are not district level cadre but State level cadre. It being so, we fail to understand as to why State level seniority list of Head Assistant and Administrative Officer should be prepared especially as there is no such rule requiring it to be so prepared. Of course, the post of Senior Administrative Officer and Chief Administrative Officer are State level posts. 7. In view of the statement made before us by the officer present and the submission of learned Standing Counsel as noticed hereinabove, we find that even though combined seniority list of Head Assistant and Administrative Officer is not prepared but once the zone of consideration is determined as per the rules and eligibility list is prepared placing the names of eligible Administrative Officer in proper seriatim based on the date of their appointment in respective districts then virtually their seniority gets reflected in the eligibility list for promotion to the higher post and the fact that such combined seniority list is not prepared is inconsequential. 8. As regards Rule 6 of the Rules, 1991 it says that whether appointments are made by way of promotion from a single feeding cadre then seniority on the promotional post would be the same as in the feeder cadre subject to the explanation contained therein. In this regard, we find merit in the submission made on behalf of the opposite parties that the cadre of Head Assistant and Administrative Officer being district level cadre, each such post in a district is treated as a separate cadre and therefore, it is not Rule 6 but Rule 7 which will apply. The cadres being district level cadre, we fail to understand as to how and why a State level list is required to be prepared. As regards seniority being reflected, we have already observed hereinabove that the persons are placed in the eligibility list for the higher post based on the date of their appointment in the feeder post and even if such appointments are in separate districts, the seniority position will get reflected in the eligibility list. Once it is not disputed by the petitioner-appellant that the post/ cadre of Head Assistant and Administrative Officer is a district level cadre nor is it demonstrated to be otherwise, there is no way a State level seniority list is required to be prepared under the aforesaid Rules of 2014 read with the Rules of 1991. 9. We, accordingly, do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. (Manish Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 8.8.2025/Shanu/- Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench