Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8690 (UTT)

Ajay Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2026-03-11

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit

body2026
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 1.6.2018, rendered by Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 19/DB/2016 and Claim Petition No. 30/DB/2017. By the said judgment, the challenge thrown by the petitioners to the seniority list dated 7.6.2017 was rejected and it was held that inter se seniority of petitioners and private respondents was rightly determined in terms of Rule 7 of Uttarakhand Government Servants Seniority Rules, 2002. 2. Brief facts of the case, as culled out from the impugned judgment, are that petitioners and private respondents were appointed to Group II post in the year 1999; petitioners were appointed on the said post on 17.12.1999, while private respondent no. 5 was so appointed on 11.1.1999. It is also not in dispute that respondent no. 5 was appointed on the result of earlier selection, while petitioners participated in a selection process, which was initiated later. Petitioners were subsequently promoted to a Group I post vide order dated 26.10.2005, while respondent no. 5 was promoted to a Group I post on 2.2.2006. Petitioners have challenged the final seniority list of Group I officers, published on 7.6.2017, by contending that since they were promoted earlier in point of time compared to respondent no. 5, therefore, they are entitled to be placed above respondent no. 5 in the final seniority list. 3. Learned Tribunal considered the provisions of the recruitment rules applicable for the posts in question and also the Uttarakhand Government Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 and held that in view of non obstante clause contained in Rule 3 of the Seniority Rules, they shall prevail over the recruitment rules for determining seniority. Learned Tribunal relied upon Rule 7 of Uttarakhand Government Servants Seniority Rules, 2002, which is extracted below: “7 . Seniority where appointment by promotion only from several feeding cadres – Where according to the service rules, appointment are to be made only by promotion but from more than one feeding cadres, the seniority inter se of persons appointed on the result of any one selection shall be determined according to the date of the order of their substantive appointment in their respective feeding cadres. Explanation – Where the order of the substantive appointment in the feeding cadre specifies a particular back date with effect from which a person is substantively appointed, that date will be deemed to be the date of order of substantive appointment and, in other cases it will meant the date of issuance of the order. Provided that where the pay scales of the feeding cadres are different, the persons promoted from the feeding cadre having higher pay scale shall be senior to the persons promoted from the feeding cadre having lower pay scale. Provided further that the persons appointed on the result of a subsequent selection shall be junior to the persons appointed on the result of a previous selection.” 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that learned Tribunal erred in law in misinterpreting Rule 7, while Rule 7 provides that anyone who is promoted earlier in point of time shall be treated as senior on the promotional post, even though two or more persons belonging to different feeding cadres are promoted pursuant to the same selection. 5. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, rendered by the Tribunal. Rule 7 of the Seniority Rules applies when promotion is the only mode of appointment to a post, which is to be filled from more than one feeding cadre. Admittedly, in the feeding cadre, respondent no. 5 was senior as he was appointed pursuant to an earlier selection and his date of substantive appointment was also prior in point of time. In such a situation, Rule 7 provides that the inter se seniority of persons appointed on the result of one promotion exercise shall be determined according to the date of their substantive appointment in their respective feeding cadres. Admittedly, respondent no. 5 was appointed on a Group II post in January 1999, while petitioners were appointed on a Group II post in the month of November and December 1999, therefore there is no scope for any doubt that petitioners were junior in the feeding cadre. Even though respondent no. 5 was promoted to a Group I post against an anticipated vacancy and the promotion was given to respondent no. 5 on a later date upon occurrence of vacancy on such post, however that fact will not be determinative of inter se seniority between petitioners and respondent no. Even though respondent no. 5 was promoted to a Group I post against an anticipated vacancy and the promotion was given to respondent no. 5 on a later date upon occurrence of vacancy on such post, however that fact will not be determinative of inter se seniority between petitioners and respondent no. 5, as Seniority Rules clearly provide that anyone who is senior in their respective feeding cadre will be treated to be senior upon promotion, if two or more persons are recommended for promotion in the same promotion exercise. In the present case, both petitioners and respondent no. 5 were recommended by the same Departmental Promotion Committee, therefore the delay in issuing order of promotion in favour of respondent no. 5 will have no effect. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners then submits that Tribunal ought to have considered the entire Rule 7, including explanation and the two provisos thereto. 7. Explanation to Rule 7 does not have any application to the present case, as it deals with a situation where someone is appointed on the feeder post with retrospective effect, which is not the case here. Similarly, first proviso to Rule 7 also is not applicable as the pay scale of petitioners as well as respondents on the feeder post was the same and there was no difference in their pay scales. The second proviso to Rule 7 also does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case, as petitioners as well as respondent no. 5 were promoted to Group I post on the result of the same selection, which was held on 24.10.2005. Thus the reasoning given by learned Tribunal cannot be faulted. Thus there is no scope for interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed.