Shitla Prasad Shukla vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 19 May, 1986
12. The learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that a peculiar situation has been created by the misdeed of the University by issuing the impugned seniority list according to which, the persons who did not even have the qualifications to be appointed as Assistants were shown as seniors to the writ petitioners at a time when the writ petitioners who were fully qualified were directly appointed to the post of Assistants. The learned Senior counsel submitted that when the unqualified persons were temporarily promoted as Assistants with conditions, only 2 out of 6 complied with the conditions and the remaining 4 persons did not do so. Therefore they were rightly reverted to the post of Junior Assistants. Thereafter the qualifications were relaxed and the services of all the 6 persons were regularised with effect from 4.7.83, which itself is illegal and unknown to service jurisprudence. However the learned Senior Counsel confined his submissions only to fixation of seniority by contending that the seniority of Page 1810 2 persons who complied with the conditions should be fixed on the date when they obtained the necessary qualifications and the seniority of others should be fixed from the date i.e., on 19.12.86 when decision was taken to regularise their services with effect from 4.7.83 in the post of Assistants after relaxing the requisite qualifications. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court (Shitala Prasad v. State of U.P.) to submit that till the relaxation in the requisite qualifications was granted, the unqualified persons could not be even considered as an Assistant and such persons cannot claim seniority over the writ petitioners who possessed the requisite qualifications on the day when they joined the duty itself.