Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The Seniority Rules of 1991 came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in a similar factual matrix in case of Pawan Pratap Singh and Another Vs. Reewan Singh and Others reported in (2011) 3 SCC 267. In the said case one group of Deputy Jailors were appointed in the year 1991 through the selection made by U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission and other group was appointed in the year 1994 by U.P. Public Service Commission. The advertisement by the U.P. Public Service Commission was issued on 26.12.1987 but the process could be completed and appointments could be made in the year 1994 only. Meanwhile, U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission was constituted and other vacancies were advertised by it on 27.10.1990 and after completing the selection process, the list of selected candidates was forwarded to the State Government in 1991 and from November, 1991, the State Government issued appointment letters to the candidates selected by the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission. The main judgment is delivered by Justice R.M. Lodha. In the said judgment his lordship, after considering Rule 5 and Rule 8 of Seniority Rules of 1991, concluded that it is Rule 8 and not Rule 5, which would be applicable where the cadre consists both direct recruitees and promotees. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment reads as:-

11. His lordship in his judgment differs regarding applicability of Rule 8 of Seniority Rules of 1991. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment of Justice Aftab Alam reads as follows:-

"53. I am completely unable to see how the facts of this case can be squeezed to fit into the proviso to Rule 5 of the 1991 Rules. An indication of the kind of cases to which the proviso would apply is given in the explanation to it. Further, in service law it is not unknown (especially in cases where recruitments are made regularly and the selection process is not inordinately prolonged) that even while a select list is alive and it is yet to be completely exhausted another select list on the basis of the next selection comes into being and appointments are made from that list. In such a situation certain vacancies relatable to the previous selection may still be filled up from the waiting list/unexhausted previous list and in those cases even though the appointment might take place later, by virtue of the proviso in question, the candidate from the previous list would rank senior to the candidate appointed from the third list. To my mind, the proviso relied upon by the High Court has no application to the facts of this case where the two appointments, based on selections made by two different agencies, are separated by a gap of two and a half years.
58. The newly formed Selection Commission issued an advertisement on 27-10-1990, for filling up 60 posts of Deputy Jailer. It completed the selection process and sent the select list to the State Government in 1991 and on that basis the appellants were appointed vide appointment letter dated 23-11-1991 issued by the State Government. At this stage, it is important to note that in terms of the advertisement issued by the Selection Commission on 27-10-1990, there was nothing to prevent those (including respondent no.1) who might have applied in response to the earlier advertisement by the UPPSC to also apply for the 60 vacancies under the later advertisement by the Selection Commission.