- (1.) Heard Mr.Upendra Nath Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr.L.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the private respondents as well as Mr.H.P.Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved with the office memorandum dated 22 August 2005, issued by the Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department of the State Government rejecting the petitioners' objection against the seniority list dated 22.7.2005 of the Assistant Registrars Cooperative Societies. They have also assailed the seniority list dated 22.8.2005 of the Assistant Registrars, Cooperative Societies. For appreciating the controversy, which has to be resolved, the brief survey of several facts as well as the sets of Rules are necessary. The petitioners were appointed on the post of Cooperative Inspectors (Group-I) through State Public Service Commission on 22.7.1977 and 15.10.1980 respectively. Some of the Cooperative Inspectors who were promoted under the promotion quota had challenged the petitioners' selection through writ petition No.874 of 1980. The tentative seniority list prepared for the Cooperative Inspector (Group-I) in 1984 was also assailed by the promotee officers in writ petition No.5952 of 1984. The Coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the dispute of inter se seniority of the Cooperative Inspector (Group-I) has arrived at the following conclusion:- "CONCLUSION: In view of the above discussion the lists impugned in the two petitions are liable to be quashed and a direction is required to be issued to the State to prepare fresh list in accordance with law indicated herein. J.P.Srivastava and Shyma Sunder Shukla, petitioners 3 and 4 in writ petition No.874 of 1980, had not been promoted to the post of Group-I Inspector. At the time of the filing of the writ petition they continued to hold the post of Group II Inspector, petitioner No.3 J.P.Srivastava had been earlier promoted on 27.1.1977 but he was later reverted with effect from 28.6.1978. The grievance of these petitioners was that the direct recruits have been recruited in excess of their quota and they were in fact entitled to be promoted. We have indicated hereinabove that there was no encroachment by one source upon the other. Accordingly the grievance raised by these petitioners is misconceived and they are not entitled to any relief. Their names cannot be included in the seniority list of Group I Inspector as they have not yet been promoted and no direction can be issued to the State to consider their claim for promotion. Of-course if some one junior to them in the promotee quota is promoted, without their claim being considered, they may have a grievance and then they can take appropriate steps for redress of their grievance. At present they have no valid grievance to raise. We have held hereinabove that vacancies occuring in a year in the direct quota could not be carried forward to the next year or years. Quashing of appointments made to such carried forward vacancies would cause hardship to the direct appointees against such vacancies. Some of them have continued on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-I for several years and may have become overage by now for any other service or post. They are not responsible for the failure of the State to observe the Rules indicated hereinabove. It will be unjust to throw them on the streets once again. We accordingly do not consider it appropriate to quash their appointments, including the appointments made, if any, during the pendency of this case. The promotees cannot have a very serious grievance against this view because, as soon hereinabove, they got promotions each year against the 50 per cent vacancies reserved for them, of course, they would have got additional posts if the carried forward formula had not been applied. But this would have been additional benefit accruing to them over and above the normal benefit. However, the seniority of all the incumbents of the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-I will have to be fixed on the basis of continuous officiation on the post. If on the determination of seniority on this basis, anyone is found to have been wrongly promoted to higher post or posts, he will have to revert to make room for the senior person whom he had superseded on account of the incorrect determination of seniority. "
(3.) On the basis of conclusive opinion formed above, this Court had passed the following order:- "ORDER In view of the above the two petitions at the instance of U.P. Cooperative Inspectors Association, S.C.Gupta, and Sohan Kar Singh Malik are hereby allowed and the seniority list dated 9.8.1979, Annexure 9 in Writ Petition No.874 of 1980 and the list dated 28.8.1984 are hereby quashed and the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P., are hereby directed to prepare fresh list in accordance with law as indicated in this judgment. It is made clear that the seniority of the promotees and direct recruits shall be counted from the date of their continuous officiation on the post of Group I Inspector. The benefit of this judgment shall be available to all promotees and direct recruits similarly situated. The promotees shall be given consequential benefits in the matter of promotion to higher posts etc. Appointments made against the carried forward vacancies by direct recruitment, whether prior to the filing of the writ petitions or during the pendency thereof, are not quashed. The costs of both the petitions shall be easy. Writ petition No.874 of 1980 at the instance of petitioners 3 and 4 is dismissed. However, it is clarified that if these petitioners have also been promoted in meanwhile to the post of Group I Inspector, they shall also be treated in accordance with this judgment.";