Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 1606   of 2020 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2779

of 2012]

Vinod Giri Goswami & Ors.     .... Appellant(s)

Versus   

The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ….Respondent(s)

W I T H  

Civil Appeal Nos. 1607-1608  of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.6847-6848 of 2012]

Civil Appeal Nos. 1609-1610  of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.9885-9886 of 2012]

Civil Appeal Nos.1611-1612  of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.9910-9911 of 2012]

Civil Appeal Nos.1614-1615 of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.33762-33763 of 2012]

Civil Appeal Nos.1617-1618 of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.33750-33751 of 2012]

Civil Appeal Nos.1619-1620 of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.33759-33760 of 2012]

A N D  

Civil Appeal No.1621 of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.18604 of 2019]

[1]

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. The above Appeals relate to the  inter se seniority

dispute between the direct recruits and the promotee

Deputy Collectors in the State of Uttarakhand.   

2. Civil  Writ  Petition  No.187  of  2010  was  filed  by

3  promotee  Deputy  Collectors  challenging  the  final

Seniority  List  dated  09.08.2010.   They  sought  a

direction  to  the  Principal  Secretary,  Department  of

Appointment  and  Personnel,  Government  of

Uttarakhand,  Dehradun  to  count  the  entire  period  of

their continuous service from the dates of their  ad hoc

appointment for the purpose of seniority in accordance

with the proviso to Rule 24(4) of the Uttaranchal Civil

Services  (Executive  Branch)  Rules,  2005  (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the 2005 Rules’).  It was averred in the

Writ  Petition  that  the  Respondents  were  initially

appointed as Naib Tehsildars and thereafter  promoted

[2]

and  confirmed  as  Tehsildars.   They  pleaded  that  the

vacancies of Deputy Collectors in the promotion quota

were not filled up due to the allocation of Provincial Civil

Services Officers not being finalised after the formation

of  the  State  of  Uttarakhand.   According  to  them,  a

number of vacancies in the promotion quota of Deputy

Collectors  were  available  but  not  filled  up.   The  Writ

Petitioners  were  promoted  on  ad  hoc basis  on

11.02.2004, 28.02.2004 and 14.07.2004 and the direct

recruits  who  were  appointed  in  the  year  2005  were

shown as seniors to them in the final Seniority List that

was  prepared  on  09.08.2010.  They  relied  upon  the

proviso to Rule 24(4) of the 2005 Rules to claim that the

entire continuous officiating service rendered by them

should  be  taken  into  account  for  the  purpose  of

determining their seniority as Deputy Collectors.   Writ

Petition Nos.188 of 2010 and 220 of 2010 were filed by

the promotee Deputy Collectors seeking relief similar to

the one prayed for in Writ Petition No.187 of 2010.   All

the three Writ Petitions were heard together. The High

[3]

Court  of  Uttarakhand  at  Nainital  allowed  the  Writ

Petitions  and  struck  down  the  seniority  list  dated

09.08.2010.   The  State  Government  was  directed  to

prepare a final seniority list of Deputy Collectors within

six months from the date of the judgment while treating

the  Writ  Petitioners  as  having  been  appointed  on  a

regular  basis  with effect  from the respective dates of

their initial  ad hoc appointment in 2004.  Relying upon

the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 of the U.P. Civil

Servant  (Executive  Branch)  Rules,  1982  (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the 1982 Rules’), the High Court held that

the  Petitioners  were  entitled  to  count  their  seniority

from the date of their initial appointments.  By referring

to the judgment of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II

Engineering  Officers’  Association v.  State  of

Maharashtra  &  Ors.1,  the  High  Court  was  of  the

opinion that  an  ad hoc appointee shall  be entitled to

count the entire service for seniority from the date of ad

hoc appointment to the date of regularisation if he was

in continuous service, without any interruption, till the

1 (1990) 2 SCC 715

[4]

date of his regularisation.  The High Court observed that

although the initial appointments of the Writ Petitioners

were not in accordance with the procedure prescribed

for making appointment, they cannot be deprived of the

benefit of the service rendered by them on ad hoc basis

for the purpose of seniority and promotion.  Accordingly,

the  High  Court  by  its  judgment  dated  07.09.2011

allowed the Writ Petition Nos.187 of 2010, 188 of 2010

and 220 of 2010.  Later, Writ Petition No.58 of 2011 on

30.11.2011 was disposed of in terms of the judgment in

Writ Petition No187 of 2010 and other Writ Petitions.    

3. Civil  Appeal  @  S.L.P.  (Civil)  Nos.6847-6848  of  2012,

Civil  Appeal  @ S.L.P.  (Civil)  Nos.9885-9886  of  2012,  Civil

Appeal @ S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.9910-9911 of 2012, Civil Appeal

@ S.L.P.  (Civil)  Nos.33762-33763 of  2012,  Civil  Appeal  @

S.L.P. (Civil)  Nos.33759-33760 of 2012 and Civil  Appeal @

S.L.P. (Civil)  Nos.33750-33751 of 2012 and Civil  Appeal @

S.L.P. (Civil) No. 2779 of 2012 were filed by the direct recruit

Deputy  Collectors  and  the  State  of  Uttarakhand  assailing

the  legality  of  the  judgment  dated  07.09.2011  in  Writ

[5]

Petition Nos.187 of 2010, 188 of 2010, 220 of 2010 and the

judgment dated 30.11.2011 in Writ Petition No.58 of 2011.

During the course of  hearing of  the above Special  Leave

Petitions, this Court by an order dated 11.03.2015 directed

the State Government to determine the deficiencies in the

direct  recruit/  promotee quota  in  the  category  of  Deputy

Collectors from year to year since the formation of the State

in the year 2000.  This Court was of the opinion that the said

exercise  was  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  deciding  the

adjustment of the direct  recruits/  promotees in  the quota

earmarked for them.  In compliance of the directions issued

by  this  Court  on  11.03.2015,  the  Government  of

Uttarakhand determined the year-wise vacancies for direct

recruits and promotees from 2000 onwards.  On the basis of

the  Office  Memorandum  dated  21.10.2015,  the  final

Seniority  List  of  Deputy  Collectors  was  prepared  by  the

State Government on 11.01.2017.   Thereafter,  during the

course  of  the  hearing  of  the  Appeals  on  25.04.2018,  an

objection  was  taken  on  behalf  of  the  Respondents/

promotees  to  the  Office  Memorandum  dated  21.10.2015

that the quota earmarked for promotees was shown to have

been  occupied  by  officers  who  continued  to  work  in  the

[6]

State of Uttar Pradesh till their retirement.   The promotees

contended that the personnel who did not join in the State

of Uttarakhand in spite of their allocation cannot be shown

to have occupied the quota for promotees to the detriment

of the Respondents in the above Appeals.  As the dispute

relating to the correctness of the Office Memorandum dated

21.10.2015 was raised for the first time by both sides, this

Court permitted the promotees to approach the High Court

for resolution of their grievances.   

4. Writ  Petition  No.299  of  2018  was  filed  by  Bhagwat

Kishore  Mishra  and  11  others  questioning  the  Office

Memorandum  dated  21.10.2015   relating  to  the

determination of year-wise vacancies of Deputy Collectors

w.e.f. 2000-2001  to  2006-2007.   By  a  judgment  dated

22.05.2019,  the  High  Court  disposed  of  the  Writ  Petition

holding  that  the  year-wise  vacancy  position  of  Deputy

Collectors  (Entry  Level)  of  the  promotees  and  the  direct

recruit quota for the period from 2000-2001 to 2006-2007

has  been  correctly  reflected  in  the  Office  Memorandum

dated  21.10.2015.   According  to  the  High  Court,  final

allotment  orders  under  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Reorganization

Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) started from

[7]

23.04.2004 and ended on 02.10.2015.  As per Section 73(2)

of the said Act, the officers in the cadre of Deputy Collectors

(Entry Level) have been deemed to be allotted to State of

Uttarakhand  w.e.f. 09.11.2000.  Thereafter, the High Court

was  satisfied  with  the  exercise  conducted  by  the

Government  in  computation  of  the  year-wise  vacancy

position for direct recruits and allottees from 2000-2001 to

2006-2007.  In such view, the High Court upheld the Office

Memorandum dated 21.10.2015.  Civil Appeal @ S.L.P.(Civil)

No.18604  of  2019  has  been  filed  by  the  unsuccessful

promotee Deputy Collectors challenging the judgment of the

High  Court  which  upheld  the  Office  Memorandum  dated

21.10.2015.   

5. It was contended on behalf of the promotees that the

judgment of the High Court dated 07.09.2011 directing the

benefit of the ad hoc service to be given to the promotees

does not call for interference.  They relied upon the proviso

to sub-rule (4) of Rule 24 of the 2005 Rules to submit that

they  have a  right  to  claim that  the period of  continuous

officiation prior  to  the dates  of  their  regular  appointment

should  be  counted  for  seniority.   It  was  argued  that  the

initial promotion on ad hoc basis in the year 2004 was after

[8]

a process of selection.  They were continuously discharging

their duties as Deputy Collectors till they were selected by

the Public Service Commission and regularly appointed in

the  year  2007.   If  their  service  from 2004  is  treated  as

regular,  the  direct  recruits  who  were  appointed  in  2005

cannot be shown as seniors to them in the seniority list of

Deputy Collectors.  The grievance raised by them regarding

the Office Memorandum that was issued by the Government

of Uttarakhand on 21.10.2015 is that the Deputy Collectors

who were allotted to the State of Uttarakhand but continued

to work in the State of Uttar Pradesh were shown to have

occupied  the  post  of  Deputy  Collectors  in  the  promotee

quota.  According to them, some of the Deputy Collectors

who continued to work in the State of Uttar Pradesh have

retired  on  attaining  the  age  of  superannuation.   For  all

practical purposes including the payment of pension, they

cannot be treated to have held a civil post in the State of

Uttarakhand.  Inclusion of their names in the seniority list of

Deputy  Collectors  has  been  done  only  to  deprive  the

promotees  the  legitimate  seniority  to  which  they  were

entitled.   The  implementation  of  the  judgments  dated

30.11.2011 in Writ Petition No.58 of 2011 and 07.09.2011 in

[9]

Writ Petition Nos.187 of 2010, 188 of 2010, 220 of 2010 and

the deletion of those Deputy Collectors who never worked in

the State of Uttarakhand from the promotee quota would

result in the promotees being accorded their rightful place

in the seniority list.   

6. On the other hand, the direct recruits submitted that

the  promotee Deputy Collectors  are not  entitled to  claim

benefit of their  ad hoc service as their initial appointments

in 2004 were contrary to the Rules.  They alleged that some

of the promotees were not confirmed in the post of Tehsildar

and in any event, the recruitment process as prescribed by

the relevant rules was not followed while making the stop

gap arrangement in the year 2004.  It was the case of the

direct  recruits  that  the  substantive  appointment  of  the

promotees was only  in  2007 and in  no event  could  they

claim  the  benefit  of  services  rendered  by  them  in

accordance  with  the  Uttaranchal  Government  Servant

Seniority Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2002

Rules’).   The direct  recruits  justified the judgment  of  the

High  Court  dated  22.05.2019  by  arguing  that  the

adjustment of the direct recruits and promotees was done

strictly in accordance with the Act and the applicable Rules.

[10]

7. On  behalf  of  the  State  of  Uttarakhand,  it  was

contended that no final order with respect to allocation of

Deputy Collectors could be passed in view of  the interim

orders passed by the Uttarakhand High Court and this Court.

Though the allotment of Deputy Collectors commenced in

2000,  the  exercise  ultimately  was  concluded  only  on

02.09.2015.  All allotments made of the Deputy Collectors

who were shown to have occupied the promotee quota were

made  w.e.f. 09.11.2000.   Though  it  is  a  fact  that  some

officers  who  were  allotted  to  the  State  of  Uttarakhand

continued to work in the State of Uttar Pradesh and retired

there,  for  all  practical  purposes  they  would  have  to  be

treated as employees of the State of Uttarakhand after the

final  allotment has been made.   It  was submitted by the

learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand that due care

and  caution  was  taken  in  ensuring  that  the  allotment  of

promotees and direct recruits was done year-wise by taking

into account the vacancies that were available within the

quota earmarked for direct recruits and the promotees.   

8. Before we proceed further, it is relevant to refer to the

statutory regime.  The reorganization of the State of Uttar

[11]

Pradesh was undertaken in the year 2000 pursuant to which

the  Uttaranchal  State  was  formed.   The  Uttar  Pradesh

Reorganization Act, 2000 (referred to as ‘the Act’) came into

effect from 09.11.2000.  Section 73 of the Act of 2000 deals

with the allotment of public servants who were serving in

the State of Uttar Pradesh before the Act of 2000 came into

force.  According to sub-Section 2 of Section 73, the Central

Government is empowered to determine final allotment of

personnel to the respective successor State and is entitled

to specify the date with effect from which such allotment

would take effect or deemed to have taken effect.  

9. Recruitments  to  the  post  of  Deputy  Collector  were

originally  governed  by  the  U.P.  Civil  Servant  (Executive

Branch), Rules, 1982.  A Deputy Collector is appointed by

direct  recruitment  through  a  competitive  examination

conducted  by  the  Public  Service  Commission  and  by

promotion from amongst the permanent Tehsildars.  Rule 16

provides  the  procedure  for  recruitment  under  the  1982

Rules  in  respect  of  promotions  according  to  which  the

criteria  for  promotion  would  be  merit  which  would  be

determined in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Promotion

by Selection in consultation with Public Service Commission

[12]

(Procedure) Rules,  1970.   Part  VI  of  the 1982 Rules dealt

with the Appointment, Probation, Confirmation and Seniority.

Rule  23  thereof  pertains  to  Seniority  which  shall  be

determined from the date of substantive appointment.  The

proviso  to  Rule  23  postulates  that  persons  appointed  in

excess of their quota shall be brought down in seniority.   

10. The  Uttarakhand  Civil  Services  (Executive  Branch)

Rules,  2005  were  notified  on  17.01.2006.   ‘Substantive

appointment’ is defined in Rule 3(i) which is as follows:

“(i)  “Substantive  appointment”  means  an

appointment not being an ad hoc appointment, on

a post in the cadre of the service and made after

selection in accordance with the rules and, if there

are  no  rules,  in  accordance  with  the  procedure

prescribed  for  the  time  being  by  executive

instruction issued by the Government.”

Rule 24(4) which is in  pari materia with Rule 20(2) of

the 1982 Rules empowers the appointing authority to make

appointments on temporary or ad hoc basis according to the

list  prepared  under  sub-Rule  1.   Sub-Rule  1  of  Rule  24

provides that appointment by promotion shall be made on

the  basis  of  the  list  prepared  under  Rule  16.   The  list

prepared  under  Rule  16  is  on  the  basis  of  the  merit

[13]

determined in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Promotion

by Selection in consultation with Public Service Commission

(Procedure) Rules, 1970.  In case no candidate is available

according  to  the  list  prepared  under  Rule  24(1),

appointments  can  be  made  on  an  ad  hoc basis  from

amongst the qualified candidates.  Such appointments can

be made only for a period of one year.   A person who is

promoted on a temporary basis, and subsequently approved

by the Commission is conferred a benefit under the proviso

to  sub-rule  (4)  of  Rule  24 to  claim the entire  continuous

service  rendered  by  him  on  a  post  within  the  promotee

quota.   

11. It  is  also  relevant  to  refer  to  the  Uttaranchal

Government  Servant  Seniority  Rules,  2002.   ‘Substantive

appointment’ is defined in Rule 4(h) as : “An appointment not being an ad hoc appointment

on a post in the cadre of the service made after

selection  in  accordance  with  the  service  rules

relating  to  that  service.   Seniority  shall  be

determined  from  the  date  of  the  order  of

substantive  appointment  when  appointments  are

made  by  them  by  promotion  or  by  direct

recruitment.”   

[14]

12. Essentially,  two  points  require  to  be  determined  in

these  Appeals.   The  first  relates  to  the  right  of  the

promotees to count the period of their ad hoc service for the

purpose of seniority.  The second pertains to the correctness

of the Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2015.  In  Direct

Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association

(supra),  this Court held that the seniority of a person

has  to  be  counted  from  the  date  of  his  initial

appointment  if  he  was  appointed  in  a  post  in

accordance with the Rules.  The corollary is that where

the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according

to  Rules  and  made  as  a  stop  gap  arrangement,  the

officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for

determining  seniority.   It  was  further  held  that  the

period  of  officiation  can  be  counted  if  the  initial

appointment is not made by following the procedure laid

down by the Rules but the appointees continued in the

post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service

in  accordance  with  the  Rules.   This  Court  settled  a

controversy relating to the application of the principles

[15]

laid  down  in  Direct  Recruit  Class  II  Engineering

Officers’ Association (supra) by a judgment in State

of West Bengal & Ors. v. Aghore Nath Dey & Ors.2

It was held as follows:

“22. There  can  be  no  doubt  that  these  two

conclusions have to be read harmoniously, and

conclusion  (B)  cannot  cover  cases  which  are

expressly excluded by conclusion (A). We may,

therefore, first refer to conclusion (A). It is clear

from conclusion (A) that to enable seniority to

be counted from the date of initial appointment

and not according to the date of confirmation,

the  incumbent  of  the  post  has  to  be  initially

appointed ‘according to rules’. The corollary set

out in conclusion (A),  then is,  that  ‘where the

initial  appointment  is  only  ad  hoc  and  not

according  to  rules  and  made  as  a  stopgap

arrangement,  the  officiation  in  such  posts

cannot be taken into account for considering the

seniority’.  Thus, the corollary in conclusion (A)

expressly excludes the category of cases where

the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not

according  to  rules,  being  made  only  as  a

stopgap  arrangement.  The  case  of  the  writ

2 (1993) 3 SCC 371

[16]

petitioners squarely falls within this corollary in

conclusion (A), which says that the officiation in

such  posts  cannot  be  taken  into  account  for

counting the seniority.

23. This  being  the  obvious  inference  from

conclusion  (A),  the  question  is  whether  the

present case can also fall within conclusion (B)

which  deals  with  cases  in  which  period  of

officiating service will  be counted for seniority.

We have no  doubt  that  conclusion  (B)  cannot

include, within its ambit, those cases which are

expressly covered by the corollary in conclusion

(A), since the two conclusions cannot be read in

conflict with each other.

24. The question,  therefore,  is  of  the category

which  would  be  covered  by  conclusion  (B)

excluding therefrom the cases covered by the

corollary in conclusion (A).

[17]

25. In our opinion, the conclusion (B) was added

to  cover  a  different  kind  of  situation,  wherein

the appointments are otherwise regular, except

for  the  deficiency  of  certain  procedural

requirements  laid  down  by  the  rules.  This  is

clear from the opening words of the conclusion

(B),  namely,  ‘if  the  initial  appointment  is  not

made by following the procedure laid down by

the  ‘rules’  and  the  latter  expression  ‘till  the

regularisation of his service in accordance with

the rules’. We read conclusion (B), and it must

be so read to reconcile with conclusion (A), to

cover the cases where the initial appointment is

made against an existing vacancy, not limited to

a  fixed  period  of  time  or  purpose  by  the

appointment order itself, and is made subject to

the  deficiency  in  the  procedural  requirements

prescribed by the rules for adjudging suitability

of the appointee for the post being cured at the

time  of  regularisation,  the  appointee  being

eligible  and  qualified  in  every  manner  for  a

regular  appointment  on  the  date  of  initial

appointment in such cases. Decision about the

nature  of  the  appointment,  for  determining

whether it falls in this category, has to be made

on  the  basis  of  the  terms  of  the  initial

appointment  itself  and  the  provisions  in  the

[18]

rules.  In  such  cases,  the  deficiency  in  the

procedural requirements laid down by the rules

has  to  be  cured  at  the  first  available

opportunity,  without  any  default  of  the

employee, and the appointee must continue in

the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of

his service, in accordance with the rules. In such

cases,  the  appointee  is  not  to  blame  for  the

deficiency in the procedural requirements under

the rules at the time of his initial appointment,

and the appointment not being limited to a fixed

period  of  time  is  intended  to  be  a  regular

appointment,  subject  to  the  remaining

procedural  requirements  of  the  rules  being

fulfilled  at  the  earliest.  In  such  cases  also,  if

there  be  any  delay  in  curing  the  defects  on

account  of  any  fault  of  the  appointee,  the

appointee would not get the full benefit of the

earlier  period  on  account  of  his  default,  the

benefit  being  confined  only  to  the  period  for

which he is not to blame. This category of cases

is different from those covered by the corollary

in conclusion (A) which relates to appointment

only on ad hoc basis as a stopgap arrangement

and not according to rules. It is, therefore, not

correct to say,  that the present cases can fall

within the ambit of conclusion (B), even though

[19]

they  are  squarely  covered  by  the  corollary  in

conclusion (A).”

13. In the instant case, the promotees were appointed

on ad hoc basis in the year 2004.  There is no dispute

regarding their  appointment on a regular basis in the

year 2007.  According to the 1982 Rules and the 2005

Rules, appointment by promotion to the post of Deputy

Collector shall be as per the Promotion for Selection in

consultation  with  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Promotion  by

Selection  in  Consultation  with  Public  Service

Commission  (Procedure)  Rules,  1970.   Procedure  for

promotion is laid down in the 1970 Rules which provide

that the eligibility list or lists have to be forwarded by

the  State  Government  to  the  Commission  which

conducts  the  selection.   The  appointment  of  the

promotees in the year 2004 is  on  ad hoc basis  for  a

period  of  one  year  without  following  the  procedure

prescribed  under  the  Uttaranchal  Promotion  by

Selection in consultation with Public Service Commission

(Procedure)  Rules,  2003.   As  the  promotions  in  2004

[20]

were made in clear violation of the Rules, the promotees

are  not  entitled  to  claim  seniority  from the  dates  of

initial  appointments  as  Deputy  Collectors.  The  High

Court  committed  an  error  in  treating  the  ad  hoc

appointments of the promotees to be only procedurally

defective to give them the benefit of the ad hoc service

by applying the judgment in  Direct Recruit Class II

Engineering Officers’ Association (supra).  The High

Court further went wrong in holding that the promotees

were entitled for the benefit of ad hoc service in view of

proviso to sub-rule (4)  of  Rule 24 of  2005 Rules.   No

doubt, according to the proviso to sub-rule (4) Rule 24 a

promotee is entitled to count ad hoc service provided he

continuously worked till  he is regularly promoted in a

post within the promotee quota.  No finding is recorded

by the High Court on this very important prerequisite

whether promotees appointed on ad hoc basis in 2004

continuously  worked  in  a  post  within  the  promottee

quota.   On the other hand, it  is  clear from the Office

Memorandum dated 21.10.2015 that only 2 posts were

[21]

available  in  the  promotee  quota  during  2003-2004.

Those  posts  also  were  allotted  to  promotees  who

worked  in  Uttar  Pradesh  throughout  their  career  and

never  joined in  the State  of  Uttarakhand.  Admittedly,

they  are  seniors  to  promotees  in  the  instant  case.

Therefore,  the High Court  was not  right  in  giving the

benefit of ad hoc service to the promotees on the basis

that the proviso to Rule 24(4) of 2005 Rules comes into

play.  In view of the above, we do not think it necessary

to adjudicate the dispute relating to the proviso to Rule

24 which exists in the English translation and does not

find place in the Hindi copy.   

14. A close scrutiny of the Office Memorandum dated

21.10.2015 would show that the exercise done by the

State of Uttarakhand in the matter of identification of

vacancies within  the direct recruit and promotee quota

from 2000-2001 to 2006-2007 is correct.  The objection

of the promotees is that the Deputy Collectors who were

allotted  to  Uttarakhand never  worked in  the  State  of

Uttarakhand and they continued to work in the State of

[22]

Uttar Pradesh from which they retired.  The grievance of

the promotees is that if such officers are included in the

seniority list, the promotees will suffer as they would be

placed below the direct recruits who were appointed in

the year 2005.  The allotment process was delayed due

to  some  officers  continuing  in  Uttar  Pradesh  on  the

strength of interim orders in Writ Petitions filed by them

challenging the allotment orders.  Some of them have

retired  on  attaining  the  age  of  superannuation  while

working  in  Uttar  Pradesh.   The  allotment  process

ultimately was finalised on 02.09.2015.  After the final

allocation, persons who did not join in Uttarakhand and

retired  in  Uttar  Pradesh  have  to  be  treated  as

employees  of  the  successor  State  of  Uttarakhand.

Moreover,  the  allotment  was  made  w.e.f. 09.11.2000

which  leaves  no  doubt  that  they  cannot  be  ignored

while  finalising the quota for  promotees and deciding

the allotment of slots for the personnel in the order of

their seniority.      

[23]

15. In view of our conclusion that the promotees are

not  entitled  to  count  their  ad  hoc service  for  the

purpose  of  computing  their  seniority.   For  the

aforementioned reasons, the Civil Appeal @ S.L.P. (Civil)

No.2779 of 2012, Civil Appeal @ S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.6847-

6848  of  2012,  Civil  Appeal  @  S.L.P.  (Civil)  Nos.9885-

9886  of  2012,  Civil  Appeal  @  S.L.P.  (Civil)  Nos.9910-

9911 of 2012, Civil  Appeal  @ S.L.P.  (Civil)  Nos.33762-

33763 of 2012, Civil Appeal @ S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.33750-

33751 of 2012, Civil Appeal @ S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.33759-

33760 of 2012 are allowed and the Civil Appeal @ S.L.P.

(Civil) No.18604 of 2019 is dismissed.      

                 ……...............................J

[L. NAGESWARA RAO]

                                    …....……..........................J.                                                     [DEEPAK GUPTA]

New Delhi, February 14, 2020.

[24]