Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

".........In our opinion the correct interpretation of the proviso to Rule 5 of the U.P. Govt. Servant Rules, 1991 is that persons like the petitioner who were selected in the selection process which commenced in 1987 should be treated as senior to there (sic) selected in selection process which commenced in 1990."

While construing the words `appointed on the result of a subsequent selection' in second proviso to rule 5 of the 1991 Rules, the High Court held as under :

16. Learned senior counsel for the appellants also contended that the High Court erred in invoking Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter when the writ petition filed by Samar Bahadur Singh (Writ Petition No. 13138/2000) was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. In this regard, the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.5 was referred.

17. On the other hand, Mr. Pramod Swaroop, learned senior counsel for the contesting first respondent stoutly defended the judgment of the High Court. He argued that the High Court was justified in relying upon second proviso to rule 5 of the 1991 Rules and holding that the candidates appointed on the basis of result of earlier selection process must rank senior to the candidates who were appointed on the basis of the result of subsequent selection. He would submit that the UPPSC started selection process for filling 114 1 (1998) 4 SCC 456 2 (1999) 9 SCC 596 3 (2006) 10 SCC 346 4 (2007) 1 SCC 683 5 (1997) 3 SCC 261 posts of Deputy Jailor in 1987; it was in this process of selection that the contesting private respondent was selected and appointed (although in the year 1994) and insofar as the 1991 appointees are concerned they underwent the subsequent selection process which started in the year 1990. Mr. Pramod Swaroop contended that 1991 Rules have the overriding effect and the seniority amongst 1991 and 1994 appointees has to be determined with reference to rule 5 of 1991 Rules. According to him, the expression `selection' in second proviso to rule 5 cannot be construed to mean only the `final selection' and since the process of selection involves several steps which begins with the issuance of the advertisement and ends with the preparation of select list, the expression `result of selection' means the result of entire selection process. In this regard, heavy reliance was placed by him on few decisions of this Court, namely, (i) A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad & Anr. v. B. Sarat Chandra & Ors.6 (ii) State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin & Ors.7; (iii) Surendra Narain Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.8 and (iv) Balwant Singh Narwal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.9.