Supreme Court settles seniority dispute for Junior Engineers in Uttar Pradesh: Ajay Kumar Shukla vs. Arvind Rai (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 08 December 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 730
Judges: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J., Vikram Nath, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Can a seniority list be prepared based on the date of receipt of select lists instead of merit? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning Junior Engineers in the Minor Irrigation Department of Uttar Pradesh. The court’s decision clarifies the importance of merit in determining seniority and promotion prospects, ensuring fairness and equal opportunity in public employment. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J., Vikram Nath, J., and B.V. Nagarathna, J., with the opinion authored by Vikram Nath, J.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the seniority list of Junior Engineers in the Department of Minor Irrigation, State of Uttar Pradesh. The appellants, belonging to the Mechanical and Civil streams, challenged the final seniority list dated 05.03.2010, and subsequently the earlier list dated 05.09.2006, arguing that the seniority was not determined based on merit but on the order in which the select lists were received from the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. The private respondents were from the Agriculture stream.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially filed a writ petition challenging the seniority list of 05.03.2010. Subsequently, they amended the petition to include a challenge to the earlier seniority list of 05.09.2006. The learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing both seniority lists and directing the preparation of a fresh list based on Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991. The Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision, citing delay, acquiescence, and non-joinder of necessary parties.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 (Rules 1991) and the Uttar Pradesh Minor Irrigation Department Subordinate Engineering Service Rules, 2009 (Rules 2009).

• Rule 5 of Rules 1991: This rule specifies that seniority for direct recruits should be based on the merit list prepared by the Commission or Committee. It states:
  
  “5. Seniority where appointments by direct recruitment only. – Where according to the service rules appointments are to be made only by the direct recruitment the seniority inter se of the persons appointed on the result of any one selection, shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list prepared by the Commission or the Committee, as the case may be…”
• Rule 8 of Rules 1991: This rule deals with seniority when appointments are made through both direct recruitment and promotion. Sub-rule 2(a) states that the seniority of direct recruits from one selection should be based on the merit list prepared by the Commission.
  
  “8. Seniority where appointments by promotion and direct recruitment. – (1) …
  (2) The seniority inter se of persons appointed on the result of any one selection –
  (a) through direct recruitment, shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list prepared by the Commission or by the Committee, as the case may be;…”
• Rule 15(4) of Rules 2009: This rule mandates that the Commission prepare a list of candidates in order of their proficiency based on the aggregate marks obtained in the written examination and interview.
• Rule 15(5) of Rules 2009: This rule provides that if recruitment is for more than one branch of engineering, the Commission should prepare a combined select list based on the aggregate marks.
• Rule 21 of Rules 2009: This rule states that seniority shall be determined in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules 1991.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• ✓ There was no delay in approaching the court, as the appellants learned about the flawed seniority list only in 2010 when the final list was published.
• ✓ It was not necessary to implead all affected engineers, as 18 of them were already part of the writ petition, representing the interests of all.
• ✓ The 2009-2010 seniority list was a fresh list, and the challenge to it was within a reasonable period.
• ✓ The seniority list was prepared contrary to the 1991 Seniority Rules and Rules 2009.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• ✓ The appellants approached the court with extraordinary delay.
• ✓ The seniority list was prepared in accordance with Rules 1991 and Rules 2009.
• ✓ There was no violation of any statutory provision in the preparation of the seniority lists.
• ✓ The appellants had accepted the seniority list of 2006 and their claim was barred by the principle of acquiescence.
• ✓ The writ petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
• ✓ The appellants having participated in the selection process cannot challenge it later.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the seniority list was prepared contrary to the statutory rules, highlighting the error in considering the date of receipt of select lists instead of merit, which was a key point in their favor.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the seniority list of Junior Engineers was rightly prepared by the Department of Minor Irrigation, U.P.
2. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
3. Whether the appellants approached the Court with extraordinary delay.
4. Whether the writ petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
5. Whether the appellants having participated in the selection/appointment process can challenge the process later on.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
• Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
• Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 (Rules 1991): Specifically, Rules 5 and 8, which deal with seniority for direct recruits.
• Uttar Pradesh Minor Irrigation Department Subordinate Engineering Service Rules, 2009 (Rules 2009): Specifically, Rules 15(4), 15(5), and 21, which deal with the procedure for direct recruitment and seniority.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure fairness and equal opportunity in public employment. The Court emphasized that seniority should be determined based on merit and not on arbitrary factors such as the date of receipt of select lists. The Court also highlighted the fundamental right to be considered for promotion, which would be violated if the seniority list was allowed to stand.

The Court was also influenced by the fact that the appellants were not aware of the flawed process until the final seniority list of 2010, and that they had been pursuing their representations after the office order of 05.03.2010.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual considerations (such as the timing of the lists and the appellants’ knowledge) and legal principles (such as the interpretation of the rules and the constitutional right to be considered for promotion).

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the seniority list was prepared based on the date of receipt of the select lists, but rejected it, stating that such a method was arbitrary and violated the statutory rules. The Court also considered the argument that the appellants were guilty of delay and laches, but rejected this argument, stating that the appellants were not aware of the flawed process until the final seniority list was published in 2010. The Court emphasized that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, and that this right would be violated if the seniority list was allowed to stand.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The seniority list was prepared based on the date of receipt of the select lists, which was arbitrary and not in accordance with the statutory rules.
• The appellants were not aware of the flawed process until the final seniority list was published in 2010.
• The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, and this right would be violated if the seniority list was allowed to stand.
• The Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The Appointing Authority, in fact, committeda grave error in preparing the seniority list based on the date of receipt of the select list from the Commission. The seniority list was to be prepared on the basis of the merit list prepared by the Commission in accordance with Rule 5 of the 1991 Rules read with Rule 15 (4) and (5) of the 2009 Rules. The Departmental Authorities have completely ignored the statutory provisions and have prepared the seniority list in an arbitrary manner. The Division Bench of the High Court has also committed an error in setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.”

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of this case is that seniority for direct recruits must be determined based on the merit list prepared by the recruiting body and not on the date of receipt of select lists. The Supreme Court emphasized that statutory rules must be strictly followed, and any deviation from them would render the action illegal and arbitrary. The Court reiterated that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 16(1) of the Constitution, and this right cannot be denied by an arbitrary seniority list.

Obiter Dicta

The Court made several obiter dicta, including the observation that a delay of three to four years is a reasonable period to challenge a seniority list, and that impleading every affected party is not necessary when a few represent the interests of all. The Court also clarified that the appellants had never challenged the selection process but only the seniority list.

Impact of the Judgment

The judgment has a significant impact on public employment, particularly in cases where seniority lists are prepared based on arbitrary criteria. It reinforces the principle that merit should be the primary determinant of seniority for direct recruits. The judgment also clarifies the scope and application of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991, and the Uttar Pradesh Minor Irrigation Department Subordinate Engineering Service Rules, 2009.

The judgment ensures that public employees are not deprived of their right to be considered for promotion due to arbitrary seniority lists. It promotes fairness, transparency, and equal opportunity in public employment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla vs. Arvind Rai (2021) is a landmark judgment that clarifies the importance of merit in determining seniority for direct recruits. The Court’s decision ensures that seniority lists are prepared in accordance with statutory rules, and that public employees are not deprived of their right to be considered for promotion due to arbitrary criteria. The judgment reinforces the principles of fairness, transparency, and equal opportunity in public employment.