Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11608 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7422 of 2024 Petitioner :- Dinesh Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Commercial Tax Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Kumar Yadav,Amit Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya),Ravi Shanker Tiwari Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Sri Birendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents and Sri Shashank Sonu holding brief of Sri Ravi Shanker Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 2. The dispute which has been agitated by the petitioners in the present case is with regard to the Seniority List dated 06.06.2023 as well as the order dated 18.09.2023 whereby the objection of the petitioners has been rejected stating that his prayer for changing the date of appointment in the Seniority List from 13.05.2003 to 07.05.2003 cannot be accepted in light of the fact that on the previous occasions when the final seniority list dated 19.11.2020 was finalized, the petitioner has not made any objection regarding the same and subsequently, no representations can be accepted at this stage and their representation was rejected. 3. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners no.1 and 2 were initially appointed on the post of Stenographer on 07.05.2003 while the petitioner no.3 was appointed on 14.07.2003. It has been submitted that the Seniority List of the Steno Cadre was finalized on 19.11.2020 indicating the date of appointment of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 to be 13.05.2003 instead of 07.05.2003 and 17.07.2003 in place of 14.07.2003 with regard to petitioner no.3. The petitioners have fairly submitted that initially objections were invited by the respondents but they did not prefer any objection as they do not notice the discrepancy in the date of appointment and accordingly, the Seniority List was finalized on 19.11.2020. It has been submitted that subsequently, again a tentative Seniority List was issued on 06.02.2023 again inviting objections and this time all the petitioners moved an application seeking correction in the date of appointment. It is stated that the Final Seniority List was finalized on 17.06.2023 without changing their date of appointment and even the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 29.08.2024. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.06.2023 and 29.08.2024 in the present writ petition. 4. It has been submitted by the petitioner that an error has crept in the Seniority List when it was prepared for the first time on 19.11.2020 and the petitioner did not notice the said discrepancy in the date of appointment and consequently, did not make any objection when the tentative Seniority List was circulated. It is subsequently, they noticed mistake when the tentative Seniority List was circulated again on 06.02.2023 and preferred the objections. It is stated that when they have preferred the objections, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have taken due cognizance of their objections and make necessary rectification in the date of appointment of the petitioner. It is said that instead of making correction in the date of appointment, the representation of the petitioners has been rejected only on the ground that they did not prefer the objections on the previous occasion when the list was finalized on 19.11.2020. It has been submitted that once it is not disputed by the respondents that the date of appointment of the petitioners no.1 and 2 is 07.05.2003 and that of petitioner no.3 is 14.07.2003, then it is mandatory for the respondents to record the correct date of appointment instead of permitting the incorrect date of appointment to be indicated against the name of the petitioners in the Seniority List. Accordingly, prayer has been made for setting aside the Seniority List as well as the order dated 29.08.2024 and seeking directions to make necessary corrections in the Seniority List and also give consequential benefits of the same to the petitioners. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. He submits that the purpose of the tentative seniority list is to seek objections from all the persons effected with regard to their place in the Seniority List and in case, there is any infirmity in the placement of such person in the Seniority List, objection can be filed, which can be adequately looked into by the competent authority before the Seniority List is finalized. He submits that on the previous occasion, in the year 2020, when the Seniority List was finalized, the petitioners did not move any objection with regard to the date of appointment and consequently, when the said issue has attained finality, they cannot be permitted to move objections at a subsequent stage and consequently, there is no infirmity in the respondents rejecting the objections of the petitioners by means of the order dated 29.07.2024, consequently, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. After hearing rival contentions, only questions which falls for consideration of this Court as to whether a government servant who does not move any objection with regard to the date of appointment when the Seniority List would bind him even in the subsequent exercises undertaken for finalizing of the Seniority List. 7. Undoubtedly, once the seniority list has been finalized, unless there is any change in circumstances ordinarily, no change would be permitted but in case there is some mistake or error which has crept into the Seniority List, which may either pertain to the date of appointment or spelling of the name of the individual which can be rectified without effecting the rights of other persons, then certainly, such corrections which are not substantial in nature are liable to be allowed, otherwise it will cause injustice to the persons, who are so effected. 8. In the present case, though it was tentative Seniority List was circulated in the year 2020 but for some reason, date of appointment could not be noticed by the petitioners due to which they did not move any objection. It is only after the notice, discrepancy in the date of appointment, the objections were filed. Once, it came to the notice of the competent authority that there is certain infirmity in the tentative seniority list, then it was necessary for them to have remove the discrepancy in the date of appointment. Even otherwise, date of appointment is the fact within the knowledge of the authority, who is preparing the Seniority List. It was primary duty of the respondents themselves to have entered the correct date of appointment rather than the incumbents pointing out the same defects, as it is a matter of record which are maintained by respondents themselves. In fact, it was the act of the respondents which deserve correction on being pointed out by the government servant and as soon as the same was pointed out, the same ought to have been rectified. Instead of rectifying their own mistakes, they compounded the matter by rejecting the representation stating that the said issue has attained finality as on the previous occasion, the petitioners have failed to submit any objection. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the date of appointment being a mere clerical error that too on the part of the respondents themselves, it was incumbent upon them to have made necessary rectification as soon as they were made aware of the said errors. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the reasons for rejecting the representation is illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, the order dated 29.08.2020 is quashed. The Seniority List dated 17.06.2023 insofar as it relates to the petitioners is quashed. The respondents are directed to issue a fresh Seniority List correcting the date of appointment of the petitioners. In case the petitioners are entitled for any benefit after the change in date of appointment, the same shall be duly considered by the respondents with expedition in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 24.2.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench