LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of seniority between direct recruits and promotee Deputy Collectors.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Vinod Giri Goswami & Ors. vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 14 February 2020
Date of the Judgment: 14 February 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 123
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Deepak Gupta, J.
Can ad-hoc service be counted for seniority? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a dispute between direct recruits and promotee Deputy Collectors in the State of Uttarakhand. The core issue revolved around whether the period of ad hoc service of promotee Deputy Collectors should be considered for determining their seniority. This judgment clarifies the rules for seniority in government services, particularly when ad hoc appointments are involved. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Deepak Gupta.
Case Background
The dispute arose from a seniority list issued on 09.08.2010, which placed direct recruits above promotee Deputy Collectors. The promotees, initially appointed as Naib Tehsildars and later promoted as Tehsildars, were given ad hoc promotions as Deputy Collectors in 2004. They claimed their continuous service from their ad hoc appointments should count towards seniority, relying on the Uttaranchal Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005. The direct recruits, appointed in 2005, were placed above them in the seniority list. The promotees argued that vacancies in the promotion quota were not filled due to delays in finalizing the allocation of Provincial Civil Services Officers after the formation of Uttarakhand in 2000. The promotees filed writ petitions challenging the seniority list.
Timeline:
Date | Event |
---|---|
2000 | Formation of the State of Uttarakhand. |
09.11.2000 | Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 came into effect. |
11.02.2004, 28.02.2004 and 14.07.2004 | Promotee Deputy Collectors were appointed on ad hoc basis. |
2005 | Direct recruits were appointed as Deputy Collectors. |
09.08.2010 | Final Seniority List was published, placing direct recruits above promotees. |
2010 | Civil Writ Petition No.187 of 2010 was filed by 3 promotee Deputy Collectors challenging the final Seniority List dated 09.08.2010. |
07.09.2011 | High Court of Uttarakhand allowed the Writ Petitions, directing the State to count ad hoc service for seniority. |
30.11.2011 | Writ Petition No.58 of 2011 was disposed of in terms of the judgment in Writ Petition No187 of 2010. |
11.03.2015 | Supreme Court directed the State to determine deficiencies in direct recruit/promotee quotas since 2000. |
21.10.2015 | State Government issued Office Memorandum determining year-wise vacancies. |
11.01.2017 | Final Seniority List of Deputy Collectors was prepared by the State Government. |
22.05.2019 | High Court upheld the Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2015. |
14.02.2020 | Supreme Court delivered its judgment, overturning the High Court’s decision. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed the writ petitions filed by the promotee Deputy Collectors, striking down the seniority list of 09.08.2010. The High Court directed the State Government to prepare a new seniority list, treating the promotees as having been appointed on a regular basis from their initial ad hoc appointment dates in 2004. The High Court relied on the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 of the U.P. Civil Servant (Executive Branch) Rules, 1982, and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(1990) 2 SCC 715], to conclude that the promotees were entitled to count their seniority from their initial ad hoc appointments. The High Court held that even though the initial appointments were not as per the prescribed procedure, the promotees could not be deprived of the benefit of their service for seniority and promotion.
The direct recruits and the State of Uttarakhand appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision. The Supreme Court directed the State to determine year-wise vacancies for direct recruits and promotees since 2000. The State Government complied and issued an Office Memorandum on 21.10.2015. The promotees then raised objections to this memorandum, arguing that some officers who were allotted to Uttarakhand but continued to work in Uttar Pradesh were incorrectly included in the promotee quota. The Supreme Court allowed the promotees to approach the High Court to resolve this grievance.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the promotees, upholding the Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2015. The High Court stated that the allotment of officers to Uttarakhand was deemed to be effective from 09.11.2000, as per Section 73(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. The High Court was satisfied with the government’s computation of year-wise vacancies. The promotees then appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision.
Legal Framework
The case is governed by several key legal provisions:
- The Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000: This Act led to the formation of the State of Uttarakhand. Section 73 of the Act deals with the allotment of public servants who were serving in Uttar Pradesh before the Act came into force. Specifically, Section 73(2) empowers the Central Government to determine the final allotment of personnel to the successor states and to specify the date from which such allotment would take effect.
- The U.P. Civil Servant (Executive Branch) Rules, 1982: These rules governed the recruitment and seniority of Deputy Collectors before the formation of Uttarakhand. Rule 16 provides the procedure for promotions, stating that merit is the criterion, determined as per the Uttar Pradesh Promotion by Selection in consultation with Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1970. Rule 23 states that seniority is determined from the date of substantive appointment, with a proviso that persons appointed in excess of their quota shall be brought down in seniority.
-
The Uttarakhand Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005: These rules were notified on 17.01.2006 and define ‘substantive appointment’ as an appointment made after selection in accordance with the rules, excluding ad hoc appointments. Rule 24(4) allows for temporary or ad hoc appointments and states that promotions should be based on a list prepared under Rule 16. The proviso to Rule 24(4) allows a promotee to count their continuous service on a post within the promotee quota if they are subsequently approved by the Commission.
Rule 3(i) defines “Substantive appointment” as:
“Substantive appointment” means an appointment not being an ad hoc appointment, on a post in the cadre of the service and made after selection in accordance with the rules and, if there are no rules, in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the time being by executive instruction issued by the Government.”
-
The Uttaranchal Government Servant Seniority Rules, 2002: These rules define ‘substantive appointment’ as an appointment made after selection in accordance with the service rules, excluding ad hoc appointments. Seniority is determined from the date of the order of substantive appointment.
Rule 4(h) defines “Substantive appointment” as:
“An appointment not being an ad hoc appointment on a post in the cadre of the service made after selection in accordance with the service rules relating to that service. Seniority shall be determined from the date of the order of substantive appointment when appointments are made by them by promotion or by direct recruitment.”
Arguments
Arguments of the Promotee Deputy Collectors:
- The promotees argued that their initial ad hoc promotions in 2004 were made after a selection process. They continuously discharged their duties as Deputy Collectors until their regular appointments in 2007.
- They relied on the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 24 of the 2005 Rules, which they claimed entitled them to count their continuous officiating service from their ad hoc appointments for seniority.
- They contended that if their service from 2004 was considered regular, the direct recruits appointed in 2005 could not be senior to them.
- They raised a grievance against the Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2015, arguing that Deputy Collectors who were allotted to Uttarakhand but continued to work in Uttar Pradesh should not be counted in the promotee quota.
- They argued that including officers who did not join Uttarakhand in the promotee quota deprived them of their rightful seniority.
Arguments of the Direct Recruit Deputy Collectors:
- The direct recruits argued that the promotees were not entitled to claim the benefit of their ad hoc service because their initial appointments in 2004 were contrary to the rules.
- They contended that the promotees’ substantive appointments were only in 2007, and they could not claim the benefit of service rendered before that date under the Uttaranchal Government Servant Seniority Rules, 2002.
- They asserted that the ad hoc appointments in 2004 did not follow the prescribed recruitment process and were merely stop-gap arrangements.
- They supported the High Court’s judgment dated 22.05.2019, which upheld the Office Memorandum and the adjustment of direct recruits and promotees.
Arguments of the State of Uttarakhand:
- The State contended that no final order regarding the allocation of Deputy Collectors could be passed due to interim orders by the High Court and the Supreme Court.
- The State clarified that while the allotment process began in 2000, it concluded only on 02.09.2015.
- The State argued that all allotments were made effective from 09.11.2000, and those allotted to Uttarakhand, even if they continued to work and retire in Uttar Pradesh, had to be treated as employees of Uttarakhand.
- The State maintained that the allotment of promotees and direct recruits was done year-wise, considering the available vacancies within their respective quotas.
Submissions:
Main Submission | Promotee Deputy Collectors | Direct Recruit Deputy Collectors |
---|---|---|
Ad Hoc Service for Seniority | Claimed ad hoc service from 2004 should count towards seniority, citing continuous service and Rule 24(4) of the 2005 Rules. | Argued ad hoc appointments in 2004 were irregular and contrary to rules, thus not counting for seniority. |
Regular Appointment Date | Contended that their service should be treated as regular from 2004, due to continuous service. | Stated that the substantive appointment of promotees was only in 2007, and seniority should be counted from that date. |
Validity of Seniority List | Objected to the seniority list of 2010, which placed direct recruits above them, and the Office Memorandum of 2015. | Justified the seniority list and the Office Memorandum, stating that they were in accordance with the Act and applicable rules. |
Inclusion of Officers Working in UP | Argued that officers allotted to Uttarakhand but working in Uttar Pradesh should not be included in the promotee quota. | Maintained that all allotted officers, even if working in UP, should be treated as employees of Uttarakhand after final allotment. |
Procedural Compliance | Claimed their ad hoc appointments were made after a selection process. | Stated that the ad hoc appointments in 2004 did not follow the prescribed recruitment process. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the promotees are entitled to count the period of their ad hoc service for the purpose of seniority.
- Whether the Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2015 is correct.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
---|---|---|
Whether the promotees are entitled to count the period of their ad hoc service for the purpose of seniority. | No. | The Court held that the promotees’ ad hoc appointments in 2004 were in violation of the rules, as they were made without following the prescribed procedure for promotion. Therefore, they were not entitled to claim seniority from their ad hoc appointments. |
Whether the Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2015 is correct. | Yes. | The Court found that the State of Uttarakhand had correctly identified vacancies within the direct recruit and promotee quotas from 2000-2001 to 2006-2007. The Court clarified that officers allotted to Uttarakhand, even if they continued to work in Uttar Pradesh, had to be treated as employees of Uttarakhand after the final allotment. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
---|---|---|---|
Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(1990) 2 SCC 715] | Supreme Court of India | Explained that seniority is counted from the date of initial appointment if it is according to the rules. It also stated that ad hoc appointments cannot be counted for seniority unless the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till regularization. | Seniority of ad hoc appointees |
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Aghore Nath Dey & Ors. [(1993) 3 SCC 371] | Supreme Court of India | Clarified the principles laid down in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association. It held that ad hoc service can be counted if the initial appointment is against an existing vacancy, not limited to a fixed period, and if the procedural deficiencies are cured at the time of regularization. | Seniority of ad hoc appointees |
Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 | Parliament of India | Deals with the allotment of public servants and empowers the Central Government to determine the final allotment of personnel to the successor states. | Allotment of Public Servants |
Rule 16 of the U.P. Civil Servant (Executive Branch) Rules, 1982 | State of Uttar Pradesh | Provides the procedure for promotions, stating that merit is the criterion. | Procedure for Promotions |
Rule 23 of the U.P. Civil Servant (Executive Branch) Rules, 1982 | State of Uttar Pradesh | States that seniority is determined from the date of substantive appointment. | Determination of Seniority |
Rule 24(4) of the Uttarakhand Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005 | State of Uttarakhand | Empowers the appointing authority to make temporary or ad hoc appointments. The proviso allows a promotee to count continuous service if they are later approved by the Commission. | Ad hoc appointments and seniority |
Rule 4(h) of the Uttaranchal Government Servant Seniority Rules, 2002 | State of Uttarakhand | Defines ‘substantive appointment’ as an appointment made after selection in accordance with the service rules, excluding ad hoc appointments. | Definition of Substantive Appointment |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
Submission | Court’s Treatment |
---|---|
Promotees’ claim for seniority based on ad hoc service from 2004. | Rejected. The Court held that the ad hoc appointments were made in violation of rules and could not be counted for seniority. |
Promotees’ argument that direct recruits appointed in 2005 cannot be senior to them. | Rejected. The Court upheld the seniority list based on the date of substantive appointment. |
Promotees’ objection to the inclusion of officers who did not join Uttarakhand in the promotee quota. | Rejected. The Court held that all allotted officers, even if they continued to work in Uttar Pradesh, had to be treated as employees of Uttarakhand after the final allotment. |
Direct recruits’ argument that ad hoc appointments were contrary to rules. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the ad hoc appointments in 2004 were made without following the prescribed procedure. |
State of Uttarakhand’s contention regarding the final allotment of officers. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the final allotment process was concluded on 02.09.2015, and all allotments were made effective from 09.11.2000. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court relied on Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(1990) 2 SCC 715] to reiterate that seniority is counted from the date of initial appointment if it is according to the rules.
- The Court also relied on State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Aghore Nath Dey & Ors. [(1993) 3 SCC 371], which clarified that ad hoc service can be counted if the initial appointment is against an existing vacancy, not limited to a fixed period, and if procedural deficiencies are cured at the time of regularization.
- The Court considered Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, which deals with the allotment of public servants and empowers the Central Government to determine the final allotment of personnel to the successor states.
- The Court also considered Rule 16 and 23 of the U.P. Civil Servant (Executive Branch) Rules, 1982, Rule 24(4) of the Uttarakhand Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005 and Rule 4(h) of the Uttaranchal Government Servant Seniority Rules, 2002 in determining the definition of substantive appointment and the procedure for appointment and promotion.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Violation of Rules: The Court emphasized that the ad hoc appointments of the promotees in 2004 were made in clear violation of the prescribed rules and procedures. This was the most significant factor in the Court’s decision to deny the promotees’ claim for seniority based on their ad hoc service.
- Substantive Appointment: The Court reiterated that seniority is determined from the date of substantive appointment, which, in the case of the promotees, was only in 2007 when they were regularly appointed.
- Interpretation of Legal Precedents: The Court clarified the application of the principles laid down in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association and State of West Bengal v. Aghore Nath Dey, stating that ad hoc service can only be counted if the initial appointment is made against an existing vacancy, not limited to a fixed period, and if the procedural deficiencies are cured at the time of regularization.
- Final Allotment of Officers: The Court upheld the State’s position that all officers allotted to Uttarakhand, even if they continued to work in Uttar Pradesh, had to be treated as employees of Uttarakhand after the final allotment process was completed.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:
Reason | Sentiment | Percentage |
---|---|---|
Violation of Rules in ad hoc appointments | Negative (against promotees) | 40% |
Emphasis on substantive appointment date | Neutral (factual) | 30% |
Interpretation of legal precedents | Neutral (legal analysis) | 20% |
Final allotment of officers | Neutral (factual) | 10% |
Ratio: Fact:Law
Category | Percentage |
---|---|
Fact | 40% |
Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Supreme Court rejected the promotees’ argument that their ad hoc service should be counted for seniority. The Court reasoned that the initial appointments were not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules. The Court stated that the promotees were appointed on an ad hoc basis for a period of one year without following the procedure prescribed under the Uttaranchal Promotion by Selection in consultation with Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 2003. The Court also clarified that the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 24 of the 2005 Rules cannot be applied in this case as there was no finding recorded by the High Court whether the promotees appointed on ad hoc basis in 2004 continuously worked in a post within the promotee quota.
The Court emphasized that the principles laid down in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association and State of West Bengal v. Aghore Nath Dey were not applicable in this case as the ad hoc appointments were not against an existing vacancy, were limited to a fixed period of one year and the procedural deficiencies were not cured at the time of regularization.
The Court also upheld the Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2015, stating that the State of Uttarakhand had correctly identified vacancies within the direct recruit and promotee quotas. The Court clarified that the officers allotted to Uttarakhand, even if they continued to work in Uttar Pradesh, had to be treated as employees of Uttarakhand after the final allotment process was completed.
The Court noted that the allotment process was delayed due to some officers continuing in Uttar Pradesh on the strength of interim orders in writ petitions filed by them. However, the allotment process was finalized on 02.09.2015, and after the final allocation, those who did not join in Uttarakhand and retired in Uttar Pradesh had to be treated as employees of the successor State of Uttarakhand.
The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Aghore Nath Dey & Ors. [(1993) 3 SCC 371]:
“22. There can be no doubt that these two conclusions have to be read harmoniously, and conclusion (B) cannot cover cases which are expressly excluded by conclusion (A). We may, therefore, first refer to conclusion (A). It is clear from conclusion (A) that to enable seniority to be counted from the date of initial appointment and not according to the date of confirmation, the incumbent of the post has to be initially appointed ‘according to rules’. The corollary set out in conclusion (A), then is, that ‘where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stopgap arrangement, the officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority’. Thus, the corollary in conclusion (A) expressly excludes the category of cases where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules, being made only as a stopgap arrangement. The case of the writ petitioners squarely falls within this corollary in conclusion (A), which says that the officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account for counting the seniority.”
The Court also quoted:
“25. In our opinion, the conclusion (B) was added to cover a different kind of situation, wherein the appointments are otherwise regular, except for the deficiency of certain procedural requirements laid down by the rules. This is clear from the opening words of the conclusion (B), namely, ‘if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the ‘rules’ and the latter expression ‘till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules’. We read conclusion (B), and it must be so read to reconcile with conclusion (A), to cover the cases where the initial appointment is made against an existing vacancy, not limited to a fixed period of time or purpose by the appointment order itself, and is made subject to the deficiency in the procedural requirements prescribed by the rules for adjudging suitability of the appointee for the post being cured at the time of regularisation, the appointee being eligible and qualified in every manner for a regular appointment on the date of initial appointment in such cases.”
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the direct recruits and the State of Uttarakhand. The Court set aside the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand dated 07.09.2011 and upheld the Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2015. The Supreme Court also upheld the High Court’s judgment dated 22.05.2019, which dismissed the writ petition filed by the promotees. The Court directed that the seniority list of Deputy Collectors be prepared in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment.
Key Takeaways
The key takeaways from this judgment are:
- Ad hoc appointments made in violation of the prescribed rules and procedures cannot be counted for seniority.
- Seniority is determined from the date of substantive appointment, which is the date when an appointment is made after selection in accordance with the rules.
- Ad hoc service can only be counted for seniority if the initial appointment is against an existing vacancy, not limited to a fixed period, and if the procedural deficiencies are cured at the time of regularization.
- Allotment of officers to a state is effective from the date specified in the allotment order, and those allotted to the state are considered employees of that state, even if they continue to work in another state.
- It is crucial to follow the prescribed rules for appointments to ensure fairness and transparency in government service.