Special appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition seeking inclusion of pre-absorption services in seniority determination for a Lecturer post under the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982.
Special Appeal dismissed; appellant not entitled to reckoning of earlier services for seniority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 202 of 2018
Appellant :- Sumitra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vimal Chandra Chaudhary,P.N. Saxena
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,C.S.C.,Rahul Srivastava
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
By the judgment impugned dated 29.01.2018, learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ preferred by the appellantpetitioner questioning correctness of the seniority determined by respondent no. 6 between the appellant and respondent no. 7. In brief, facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner entered in service of the respondent-Committee of Management as Subject Expert on 11.10.1999. She was absorbed in service of respondent no. 6 as Lecturer on 26.09.2007. While working as Lecturer, the vacancy of the post of Principal occurred due to retirement of one Smt. Shashibala Agrawal on 31.03.2017. At the first instance, a recommendation was made for appointment of the appellant-petitioner as Principal against the vacancy available by treating her as the Lecturer senior-most, however, recommendation made was subsequently withdrawn with recommendation to promote respondent no. 7 as Principal by treating her as the Lecturer senior-most. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, the appellant-petitioner preferred a petition for writ with submission that in light of the provisions of Section 21-G of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1982"), the appellant-petitioner is entitled for taking into consideration the earlier services rendered by her for determination of seniority in the cadre of Lecturer. It is further
submitted that provisions of Section 21-G of the Act, 1982 were clarified by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under a letter dated 22.11.2017 and as per that, services by the Subject Expert are required to be taken into consideration for all administrative purposes including for the purpose of promotion. It is asserted that in light of the clarification given by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, it was obligatory upon the respondents to reckon seniority of the appellant-petitioner w.e.f. 11.10.1999.
Having considered the arguments advanced and on going through the record, we do not find any merit with the arguments advanced.
At the threshold, it would be appropriate to state that respondent no. 7 entered in the service of respondents being appointed as Lecturer in substantive capacity on 29.05.2006 i.e. at least one year and four months prior to appellant-petitioner.
The sole argument of learned counsel for the appellantpetitioner is that in light of provisions of Section 21-G of the Act, 1982 read with interpretation made by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the appellant-petitioner is entitled to get her seniority reckoned w.e.f. 11.10.1999.
True it is, clarification made by the State of Uttar Pradesh refers for taking into consideration the earlier services in light of the provisions of Section 21-G of the Act, 1982 for the purpose of promotion also but merely on that count, the statute cannot be read as suggested. Section 21-G of the Act, 1982 was introduced to the Act, 1982 under an Amendment Act, 2014 and as per aims and objects given under the Amendment Act, 2014, the provision aforesaid was introduced only in administrative interest to make the appointees absorbed in regular service for pensionary benefits, fixation of pay on notional basis and for determination of their qualifying service. The aims and objects nowhere state that period aforesaid is also required to be taken
into consideration for determination of seniority vis-a-vis the existing employees working in substantive capacity. A bare reading of Section 21-G of the Act, 1982 also does not disclose such an intention.
In view of whatever stated above, this appeal is devoid of merit, hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2018 Shubham
(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether earlier services rendered as a Subject Expert should be reckoned for seniority determination vis-a-vis employees in substantive capacity under Section 21-G of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Educa
Whether the Government of Uttar Pradesh clarification dated 22.11.2017 obligates respondents to consider pre-absorption services for seniority.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sumitra Singh
State Of U.P.
Govind Mathur
Chandra Dhari Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
