Supreme Court Upholds Rota System for Seniority of Promotees and Direct Recruits: Amit Singh vs. Ravindra Nath Pandey (2022)

Date of the Judgment: November 11, 2022
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 8324-8327 of 2022
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Can seniority between direct recruits and promotees be determined solely by the date of appointment, or should a rota system be followed? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning Assistant Consolidation Officers in Uttar Pradesh. The court clarified that when appointments are made through both direct recruitment and promotion within the same recruitment year, seniority must be determined by a cyclic order, giving preference to promotees, as per the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 and the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, with Justice Gavai authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute over the seniority of Assistant Consolidation Officers (ACOs) in Uttar Pradesh. The dispute arose between those who were promoted to the post of ACOs and those who were directly recruited. The promotees were initially appointed as Consolidators in the Consolidation Department and were promoted to ACOs in 1997. The direct recruits were appointed to the post of ACOs on August 18, 1997, based on recommendations from the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission. Both groups entered the cadre of ACOs in the recruitment year of 1997-1998 (between July 1, 1997, and June 30, 1998).

The promotees claimed that their seniority should be above the direct recruits of the same recruitment year, citing the 1991 Rules, which stipulate a cyclic order for seniority, with a promotee followed by a direct recruit. The State and the direct recruits argued that seniority should be based on the year of vacancy, not the date of appointment. The State contended that direct recruits, although appointed later, were filling vacancies from earlier years and thus should be placed higher in the seniority list.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The promotees initially filed writ petitions before a single judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, challenging the seniority list dated July 29, 2005. The single judge ruled in favor of the promotees, stating that they should be placed above the direct recruits in the seniority list, as both entered the cadre in the same recruitment year (1997-1998). The single judge quashed the seniority list of 2005 and directed the state to place the promotees above the direct recruits.

Aggrieved by the single judge’s decision, the direct recruits filed appeals before a division bench of the High Court. The division bench upheld the single judge’s findings but modified the order, directing that the State should apply the rota system to direct recruits and promotees appointed in one recruitment year. The direct recruits then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the following rules:

✓ Rule 8 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991: This rule outlines how seniority is determined when appointments are made through both promotion and direct recruitment. Sub-rule (1) states that seniority is determined from the date of the order of substantive appointment. Sub-rule (3) mandates that seniority between promotees and direct recruits should be determined in a cyclic order, with the first position going to a promotee, based on the prescribed quota for each source.

The rule states:
“8. Seniority where appointments by promotion and direct recruitment.-
(1) Where according to the service rules appointments are made both by promotion and by direct recruitment, the seniority of persons appointed shall, subject to the provisions of the following sub-rules, be determined from the date of the order of their substantive appointments, and if two or more persons are appointed together, in the order in which their names are arranged in the appointment order:
Provided that if the appointment order 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 mean the date of issuance of the order:
Provided further that a candidate recruited directly may lose his seniority if he fails to join without valid reasons, when vacancy is offered to him the decision of the appointing authority as to the validity of reasons, shall be final.
(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;
(b) by promotion, shall be as determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Rule 6 or Rule 7, as the case may be, according as the promotion are to be made from a single feeding cadre or several feeding cadres.
(3) Where appointments are made both by promotion and direct recruitment on the result of any one selection the seniority of promotees vis-a-vis direct recruits shall be determined in a cyclic order (the first being a promotee) so far as may be, in accordance with the quota prescribed for the two sources.”

✓ The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992: These rules define the “year of recruitment” as a period of twelve months starting from July 1 of a calendar year. They also specify that 67% of ACO posts are filled by direct recruitment and 33% by promotion. Rule 18 mandates a combined select list when appointments are made through both direct recruitment and promotion in the same recruitment year, with the first name being that of a promotee. Rule 19(2) states that regular appointments cannot be made unless selections are made from both sources and a combined list is prepared. Rule 19(3) further states that appointments from both sources should be arranged in a cyclic order.

Rule 18 states:
“18. Combined select list.- If in any year of recruitment appointments are made both by direct recruitment and by promotion, a combined select list shall be prepared by taking the names of candidates from the relevant list, in such manner that the prescribed percentage is maintained, the first name in the list being of the person appointed by promotion.”

Rule 19 states:
“19. Appointments.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) the appointing authority shall make appointment by taking the names of candidates in order in which they stand in the list prepared under Rule 15, 16 or 17, as the case may be.
(2) Where in any year of recruitment, appointments are to be made both by direct recruitment and by promotion, regular appointments shall not be made unless selections are made from both the sources and a combined list is prepared in accordance with Rule 18.
(3) If more than one orders of appointments are issued in respect of anyone selection, a combined order shall also be issued, mentioning the names of the persons in order of seniority as determined in the selection or, as the case may be, as it stood in the cadre from which they are promoted. If the appointments are made both by direct recruitment and by promotion, names shall be arranged in accordance with the cyclic order referred to in Rule 18.”

These rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the legislature to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellant (Direct Recruits):

• The direct recruits were appointed on August 18, 1997, while the promotees were promoted on December 16, 1997. Therefore, the direct recruits entered the cadre of ACOs before the promotees.
• The 1991 Rules stipulate that seniority should be determined from the date of the order of substantive appointments. Since the direct recruits were appointed earlier, they should be placed above the promotees in the seniority list.
• The 1991 Rules have an overriding effect, and Rule 8 of the 1991 Rules, the seniority of persons appointed has to be determined only from the date of their substantive appointments.
• The High Court’s decision to apply the rota system is incorrect because the 1991 Rules do not apply to the facts of the present case.
• If the High Court’s judgments are upheld, it would amount to giving the promotees retrospective seniority, which is not permissible as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn. (Direct Recruit) and others vs. State of U.P. and others [(2006) 10 SCC 346].

Arguments of the Respondents (Promotees):

• Both the promotees and the direct recruits entered the cadre of ACOs in the same recruitment year, i.e., 1997-98.
• The High Court correctly applied the rota system, as stipulated in the 1991 Rules, for determining seniority when appointments are made from both sources in the same recruitment year.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issue was:

1. Whether the seniority of direct recruits and promotees, who were appointed in the same recruitment year, should be determined based on the date of appointment or by applying the rota system as per the 1991 and 1992 Rules.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases

• Pawan Pratap Singh and others vs. Reevan Singh and others [(2011) 3 SCC 267]: The Supreme Court reiterated the principles for determining seniority, stating that the effective date of selection should be understood in the context of service rules. It also stated that inter-se seniority must be determined as per the service rules and that the date of entry into service or substantive appointment is the safest criterion. Notional seniority should not be granted retrospectively unless expressly provided by the rules.
• P. Sudhakar Rao and others vs. U. Govinda Rao and others [(2013) 8 SCC 693]: A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court approved the law laid down in Pawan Pratap Singh (supra).
• Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn. (Direct Recruit) and others vs. State of U.P. and others [(2006) 10 SCC 346]: The Court distinguished this case, noting that the 1992 Rules were not considered in that case. The court observed that the promotees in the said case were claiming seniority over direct recruits who were appointed at an earlier point in time.

Statutes

• Rule 8 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991: This rule outlines the method for determining seniority for appointments made through both promotion and direct recruitment.
• The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992: These rules define the year of recruitment and specify the quota for direct recruits and promotees. They also mandate the preparation of a combined select list and the application of the cyclic order for seniority.

Authorities Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the principles laid down in Pawan Pratap Singh and others vs. Reevan Singh and others [(2011) 3 SCC 267]* and P. Sudhakar Rao and others vs. U. Govinda Rao and others [(2013) 8 SCC 693]* regarding the determination of seniority as per the service rules.
• The Court distinguished Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn. (Direct Recruit) and others vs. State of U.P. and others [(2006) 10 SCC 346]* as the 1992 Rules were not considered in that case.
• The Court interpreted and applied Rule 8 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991* and The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992* to determine the seniority of promotees and direct recruits.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear provisions of the 1992 Rules, which mandate a cyclic order for seniority when appointments are made from both direct recruitment and promotion within the same recruitment year. The Court emphasized that the 1992 Rules supersede all existing rules and orders on the subject and that a combined select list must be prepared with the first name being that of a promotee. The Court also noted that the 1992 Rules define the “year of recruitment” which was crucial in determining the applicable rules for seniority.

Logical Reasoning

The court considered and rejected the argument that the direct recruits should be given seniority based on their earlier appointment date. The court reasoned that such an interpretation would go against the express provisions of the 1992 Rules, which mandate a cyclic order for seniority when appointments are made from both sources in the same recruitment year. The court also rejected the argument that applying the rota system would amount to giving retrospective seniority, stating that it is a method of determining seniority as per the rules.

The Supreme Court’s decision was that the seniority list dated July 29, 2005, which gave undue benefits to the direct recruits, was not sustainable in law. The court upheld the High Court’s direction to apply the rota system for determining seniority between direct recruits and promotees who were appointed in the same recruitment year.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The perusal of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the 1991 Rules would reveal that, where according to the service rules appointments are made both by promotion and by direct recruitment, the seniority of persons appointed shall, subject to the provisions of the said sub-rules, be determined from the date of the order of their substantive appointments.”

“Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the 1991 Rules would be most important. It provides that, where appointments are made both by promotion and by direct recruitment on the result of any one selection, the seniority of promotees vis-à-vis direct recruits shall be determined in a cyclic order, i.e. the first being a promotee, so far as may be, in accordance with the quota prescribed for the two sources.”

“In view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 of the 1992 Rules, where the appointment of both the direct recruits and of the promotees were to be made in the same year of recruitment, regular appointments should not have been made unless selections were made from both the sources and a combined list was prepared in accordance with Rule 18 of the 1992 Rules.”

There was no minority opinion in this case; both judges concurred with the majority opinion.

The judgment clarifies that the 1992 Rules, which were framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, are in supersession of all existing Rules and Orders on the subject. The judgment also clarifies the correct interpretation of the 1991 and 1992 rules for determining seniority in cases where appointments are made through both direct recruitment and promotion in the same recruitment year. This judgment is likely to have implications for similar cases involving seniority disputes between direct recruits and promotees in Uttar Pradesh.

The judgment establishes that the seniority of promotees and direct recruits must be determined by the rota system when appointments are made in the same recruitment year, as per the 1992 Rules. This has implications for future cases in Uttar Pradesh.

Key Takeaways

• Seniority between direct recruits and promotees appointed in the same recruitment year in Uttar Pradesh must be determined by applying the rota system, as per the 1992 Rules.
• The 1992 Rules supersede all existing rules and orders on the subject and that a combined select list must be prepared with the first name being that of a promotee.
• The date of appointment is not the sole criterion for determining seniority in cases where appointments are made from both sources in the same recruitment year.
• The judgment clarifies the application of the 1991 and 1992 rules for determining seniority in Uttar Pradesh.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than dismissing the appeals and upholding the High Court’s decision to apply the rota system.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the seniority of promotees and direct recruits appointed in the same recruitment year must be determined by applying the rota system as per the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992. This judgment clarifies the correct interpretation of the 1991 and 1992 rules, and it reinforces the principle that seniority should be determined by the rules applicable to the service.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision to apply the rota system for determining seniority between direct recruits and promotees who were appointed in the same recruitment year. The Court clarified that the 1992 Rules mandate a cyclic order for seniority, with the first position going to a promotee, when appointments are made from both sources in the same recruitment year. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the specific service rules when determining seniority.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law
Child Categories: Seniority, Rota System, Direct Recruitment, Promotion, Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991, Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992

Parent Category: Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991
Child Categories: Rule 8, Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991

Parent Category: Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992
Child Categories: Rule 18, Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992, Rule 19, Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992

FAQ

Q: What is the rota system for seniority?

A: The rota system is a method of determining seniority where positions are allocated in a cyclic order between different groups of employees, such as promotees and direct recruits. For example, the first position goes to a promotee, the second to a direct recruit, and so on, based on a prescribed quota.

Q: What happens if appointments from one source exceed the prescribed quota?

A: If appointments from any source exceed the prescribed quota, the excess appointees are pushed down in seniority to subsequent years where vacancies exist, in accordance with the quota.

Q: What does “year of recruitment” mean in this context?

A: In the context of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992, a “year of recruitment” is defined as a period of twelve months starting from the first day of July of a calendar year.

Q: What are the implications of this judgment?

A: This judgment clarifies the method for determining seniority between direct recruits and promotees in Uttar Pradesh, when they are appointed in the same recruitment year. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to the specific service rules and the rota system for seniority determination.

Q: How does this judgment impact future cases?

A: This judgment sets a precedent for future cases in Uttar Pradesh that involve disputes over seniority between direct recruits and promotees. It reinforces the principle that seniority must be determined by the rota system as per the 1992 Rules.