PAWAN PRATAP SINGH Vs. REEVAN SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2011-2-38
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
February 10,2011
PAWAN PRATAP SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
REEVAN SINGH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF U.P. V. RAFIQUDDIN AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]A P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION HYDERABAD VS. B SARAT CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
DIRECT RECRUIT CLASS II ENGINEERING OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR BALDEO PRASAD VS. AKHOURI SACHINDRA NATH:AKHOURI SACHINDRA NATH [REFERRED TO]
RAM JANAM SINGH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH:RAJENDRA SINGH MALHAN [REFERRED TO]
L CHANDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CH PATNAIK NALINIKANTA MOHAPATRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA NARAIN SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
AJIT KUMAR RATH VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
UTTARANCHAL FOREST RANGERS ASSON VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL VS. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH NARWAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
AMIT SINGH VS. RAVINDRA NATH PANDEY [LAWS(SC)-2022-11-51] [REFERRED TO]SUDHIR KUMAR ATREY VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-159] [REFERRED TO]
SUMITRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U P AND 5 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-535] [REFERRED TO]
ADIL RASHID SIDDIQUI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-83] [REFERRED TO]
SANDIP HALDER VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-8-89] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP KUMAR VERMA VS. SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE OF UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2015-8-67] [REFERRED]
DURGESH NANDINI VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2022-8-137] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT KUMAR SONA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2024-7-42] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-9-131] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. SURYAMANI SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-296] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-448] [REFERRED TO]
DR. RITA WAHAL VS. CHANCELLOR, KING GEORGES MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW & 3 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-25] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION & LITERACY AND ORS. VS. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-391] [REFERRED TO]
N SURESH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-703] [REFERRED]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [LAWS(SC)-2013-8-38] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK MATHUR AND ORS. VS. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDHYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-11-74] [REFERRED TO]
LICHUMBENI KIKON VS. NAGALAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(GAU)-2016-4-85] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. KISHORE TANDON [LAWS(ALL)-2021-6-28] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV KESARWANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2014-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR AWASTHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
MANU TENTIWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2012-3-59] [REFERRED TO]
V. VINCENT VELANKANNI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2024-9-78] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA RAJKUMAR VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2021-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
PREM NARAYAN MISHRA AND OTHERS VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, STATE OF M P AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2012-11-282] [REFERRED]
H. C. PRABHUSHANKAR VS. KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(KAR)-2021-3-126] [REFERRED TO]
GANGA VISHAN GURJARATI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-4-83] [REFERRED TO]
ANKIT KHANDELWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
V. SELVANATHAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-82] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. N.R. PARMAR [LAWS(SC)-2012-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
RANGARAMU M.R. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-7-458] [REFERRED TO]
MONGLAGYA MOG VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2013-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
DHANANJAY SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2021-10-52] [REFERRED TO]
HOMANLAL HIRWANI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2020-2-160] [REFERRED TO]
B.S. MURTHY VS. A. RAVINDER SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2022-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS; HIMACHAL EXIM [LAWS(MAD)-2015-10-380] [REFERRED]
P. BHASKARAN AND ORS. VS. S.K.M. SIVAKUMARAN AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
P.S. JEGANNATHAN VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-7-101] [REFERRED TO]
N. SURESH AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-186] [REFERRED TO]
VIPIN S. AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2018-6-711] [REFERRED TO]
S. MURUGESAN VS. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-563] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR MADHUKAR VS. STATE GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-6-50] [REFERRED TO]
S.S.YADAV VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2023-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER KUMAR JHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-144] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAYAN CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AD ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-7-67] [REFERRED TO]
P. SUDHAKAR RAO VS. U. GOVINDA RAO [LAWS(SC)-2013-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
HEM KANT ROY VS. GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2012-11-53] [REFERRED TO]
AHMED ALI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-9-73] [REFERRED TO]
DIGAMBAR THAKUR, S/O LATE PRAMOD THAKUR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-11-17] [REFERRED TO]
N. Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Shri. N. Narayanappa, Assistant Director of Karnataka Land Army Corporation Limited and others etc. etc. VS. The Karnataka Land Army Corporation Limited, represented by its Managing Director and others etc. etc.@responden [LAWS(KAR)-2011-7-241] [REFERRED TO]
SADHAN KUMAR KUNDU VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-3-73] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KISHORE ANAND & 9 ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-10-63] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. SANDIP KUMAR ROY AND OTHERS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-349] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAKANT C. MISHRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-9-40] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA PANDEY VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2020-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
ABINASH NANDA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(TRIP)-2021-4-74] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR TYAGI AND SHAILENDER KUMAR SINHA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND DIRECTOR GENERAL, SHASHASTRA SEEMA BAL, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS [LAWS(CA)-2014-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
YASH RATTAN VS. UNION OF INDIAN [LAWS(DLH)-2021-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ RAO AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU DEPTT. OF ENERGY GOVT. OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-10-124] [REFERRED TO]
DR. UDAI PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECY. SECONDARY EDU. LKO. & ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-418] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. DHARAMDEO DAS [LAWS(SC)-2024-7-87] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MANPREET SINGH POONAM [LAWS(SC)-2022-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
HARIHARAN VS. HARSH VARDHAN SINGH RAO [LAWS(SC)-2022-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. N.C. MURALI AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-107] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2020-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
S. MALAR VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-950] [REFERRED TO]
KULJIT PAUL SINGH MAHI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2018-7-301] [REFERRED TO]
SANJUKTA PADHI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2019-9-38] [REFERRED TO]
NINGAM SIRO, S/O (L) THODAI SIRO OF LEISHIPHUNG VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2017-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
N SRINIVASA REDDY VS. KARNATAKA LAND ARMY COPORATION LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2011-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI CHAND VS. RAKESH KUMAR [LAWS(J&K)-2014-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR ABROL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2015-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT KUMAR MEHTA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2013-2-178] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR S VS. SWAPNA S ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRIC [LAWS(KER)-2018-5-55] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR SINGH VS. CHAIRMAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ALLD & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-9-236] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BABU YADAV & 93 ORS; MOHAMMAD IRSHAD & 7 ORS; SURESH KUMAR YADAV AND 2 ORS; RAJESH SINGH AND 46 ORS; RAJEEV SRIVASTAVA AND 4 ORS VS. STATE OF U P THROUGH PRIN SECY HOME LKO & ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-201] [REFERRED TO]
PARAS NATH SINGH YADAV AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-174] [REFERRED]
RISHI NANDAN VS. JHARKHAND URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-12-66] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)In this group of three appeals, by special leave, the
question presented for consideration before this Court relates to
determination of seniority between two groups of direct recruits to the
posts of Deputy Jailor (Group 'C' post), one appointed in 1991
through the selection made by Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services
Selection Commission (for short, 'Selection Commission') and the
other in 1994 by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short,
'UPPSC').
(2.)The Uttar Pradesh Jail Executive Subordinate (Non- Gazetted) Service Rules, 1980 (for short, '1980 Rules') were framed by the Governor of the State in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution which were published in U.P. Gazette, Extraordinary on June 9, 1980. Rule 5 of the 1980 Rules deals with the recruitment to the posts of Deputy Jailor and Assistant Jailor in the service. The recruitment to the posts of Deputy Jailor is by two sources: (i) by direct recruitment and (ii) by promotion from amongst the permanent Assistant Jailors. Rule 15 provides for procedure for direct recruitment to the posts of Deputy Jailor and Assistant Jailor. It reads thus :
"15. Procedure for direct recruitment to the posts of Deputy Jailor, Assistant Jailor.--(1) Applications for permission to appear in the competitive examination shall be called by the Commission in the prescribed form, which may be obtained from the Secretary to the Commission on payment.
(2) No candidate shall be admitted to the examination unless he holds a certificate of admission issued by the Commission.
(3) After the results of the written examination have been received and tabulated, the Commission shall having regard to the need for securing due representation of the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and others under Rule 6, summon for interview such number of candidates as, on the result of the written examination, have come up to the standard fixed by the Commission in this respect. The marks awarded to each candidate at the interview shall be added to the marks obtained by him in the written examination.
(4) The Commission shall prepare a list of candidates in order of their proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate of marks obtained by each candidate at the written examination and interview and recommend such number of candidates as they consider fit for appointment. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the name of the candidate obtaining higher mark in the written examination shall be placed higher in the list. The number of names in the list shall be larger, but not larger by more than 25 per cent of the number of vacancies. The Commission shall forward the list to the appointing authority."
(3.)Part-VI of the 1980 Rules deals with appointment, probation, confirmation and seniority. For the purposes of these appeals, rule 22 of the 1980 Rules needs to be referred which is as follows:
"22. Seniority.--Seniority in any category of posts in the service shall be determined from the date of substantive appointment and if two or more persons are appointed together, from the order in which their names are arranged in the appointment order :
Provided that--
(1) the inter se seniority of persons directly appointed to the service shall be the same as determined at the time of selection.
(2) the inter se seniority of persons appointed to the posts of Deputy Jailor by probation shall be the same as it was in the substantive post held by them at the time of promotion; and ........."
(2.)The Uttar Pradesh Jail Executive Subordinate (Non- Gazetted) Service Rules, 1980 (for short, '1980 Rules') were framed by the Governor of the State in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution which were published in U.P. Gazette, Extraordinary on June 9, 1980. Rule 5 of the 1980 Rules deals with the recruitment to the posts of Deputy Jailor and Assistant Jailor in the service. The recruitment to the posts of Deputy Jailor is by two sources: (i) by direct recruitment and (ii) by promotion from amongst the permanent Assistant Jailors. Rule 15 provides for procedure for direct recruitment to the posts of Deputy Jailor and Assistant Jailor. It reads thus :
"15. Procedure for direct recruitment to the posts of Deputy Jailor, Assistant Jailor.--(1) Applications for permission to appear in the competitive examination shall be called by the Commission in the prescribed form, which may be obtained from the Secretary to the Commission on payment.
(2) No candidate shall be admitted to the examination unless he holds a certificate of admission issued by the Commission.
(3) After the results of the written examination have been received and tabulated, the Commission shall having regard to the need for securing due representation of the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and others under Rule 6, summon for interview such number of candidates as, on the result of the written examination, have come up to the standard fixed by the Commission in this respect. The marks awarded to each candidate at the interview shall be added to the marks obtained by him in the written examination.
(4) The Commission shall prepare a list of candidates in order of their proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate of marks obtained by each candidate at the written examination and interview and recommend such number of candidates as they consider fit for appointment. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the name of the candidate obtaining higher mark in the written examination shall be placed higher in the list. The number of names in the list shall be larger, but not larger by more than 25 per cent of the number of vacancies. The Commission shall forward the list to the appointing authority."
(3.)Part-VI of the 1980 Rules deals with appointment, probation, confirmation and seniority. For the purposes of these appeals, rule 22 of the 1980 Rules needs to be referred which is as follows:
"22. Seniority.--Seniority in any category of posts in the service shall be determined from the date of substantive appointment and if two or more persons are appointed together, from the order in which their names are arranged in the appointment order :
Provided that--
(1) the inter se seniority of persons directly appointed to the service shall be the same as determined at the time of selection.
(2) the inter se seniority of persons appointed to the posts of Deputy Jailor by probation shall be the same as it was in the substantive post held by them at the time of promotion; and ........."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.