Allahabad High Court
Dr.Narendra Agrawal vs State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief ... on 18 November, 2024
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75791
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23987 of 2020
Petitioner :- Dr.Narendra Agrawal
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy.Medical Health And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Prasad Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Shukla,R K Upadhyay,Rakesh Kumar Shukla,Ram Sewak,Ravi Pandey
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Hari Prasad Gupta, counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 and Sri R.K. Upadhyay, counsel for the respondent no.3.
2. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for the post of Medical Officer on publication of the advertisement by the U.P. Public Service Commission and the petitioner being eligible has moved an application for consideration of his name. After participating at all level in the said selection, the name of the petitioner found mention in the select list published in the year 1987 issued in order of the merit and his name found mention at Serial No.462. Select list prepared by the Public Service Commission, the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No.462 while that of Dr. Brijesh Rathore was shown at Serial No.536 and that of Dr. Sailesh Kumar Srivastava was shown at Serial No.760.
3. Pursuant to the joining, the department the Seniority list dated 05.06.2003 was issued where the name of the petitioner found mention at Serial No.7192 while that of Dr. Brijesh Rathore was shown at Serial No.6701 and Dr. Sailesh Kumar Srivastava at Serial No.6721. He has submitted that according to the rule governing the seniority of the persons who are selected through U.P. Public Service Commission Known as 'U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991. Rule 5 provides for seniority where appointment is by direct recruitment only and is provided that where the appointment to the service are to be made only by the direct recruitment the seniorityinter se of the persons appointed on the result of any one selection, shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list prepared by the Commission or the Committee, as the case may be.
4. In the present case, undoubtedly, in the select list prepared by the U.P. Public Service Commission, the petitioner was senior to respondents no.4 and 5, but subsequently, when the seniority list was prepared by the State Government on 05.06.2003, the petitioner was shown as junior to respondents no.4 and 5. It is stated that in light of the Seniority Rules of 1991, the petitioner could not have been placed junior to the persons, who were placed junior to him in the select list prepared by the U.P. Public Service Commission.
5. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that at the time when the select list was prepared and sent to the State Government, the document of the petitioner had not been verified and his name was provisionally sent to the State Government. Subsequently, when his documents are verified, his name also figured in the select list and was also sent to the State Government, in pursuance to which the appointment letters were issued to him. Though in the counter affidavit, it is only said that the name of the petitioner was sent as the provisional candidate rather than final selectee in the said select list, but there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner and the private respondents participated in the same selection and were held to be qualified and appointed in the said selection and their names were duly recommended by the U.P. Public Service Commission for appointment. Only because of the certain fortunes circumstance, the Commission was unable to verify the documents of the petitioner that there was some delay in recommending his name to the State Government for appointment.
6. Once it is seen that name of the petitioner was included in the select list, submitted by the U.P. Public Service Commission then Rule 5 would come into operation and the seniority of all the persons whose names find mention in the select list prepared on merit should be followed by the State Government and inter se seniority has to be determined only as per the merit list prepared by the U.P. Public Service Commission. The petitioner who was shown at Serial No. 462 in the select list and was undoubtedly senior to the respondents no.4 and 5 could not have been placed below them in the seniority list prepared by the State Government.
7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner was directed by means of order of this Court dated 28.08.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.13609 (SS) of 2020 to decide the representation of the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected on account of the fact that the case of the petitioner does not fall in the realm of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Chandra Prakash and others vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2002) 10 SCC 710.
8. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the case of Dr. Chandra Prakash does not determine the controversy at hand. It has been submitted that in the said controversy pertaining to adding of the ad hoc services for counting of seniority according to rule 18 of the Seniority Rules of Rules of 1991 and did not consider the dispute which has been raised in the present case.
9. Accordingly, this Court of the considered view that the controversy at hand could not have been decided relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Chandra Prakash (supra) and accordingly, by means of the impugned order, the respondent no.1 has misdirected itself in not taking into account the valid consideration for determining the seniority of the petitioner which should have been done apply to provisions of Rule 5 of Seniority Rules, 1991, rather than the judgment of in the case Dr. Chandra Prakash.
10. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.11.2020 is quashed. However, the respondents are directed to refix the seniority of the petitioner in light of the select list submitted by the U.P. Public Service Commission wherein the petitioner was shown at Serial No.462 much senior to respondents no.4 and 5 who were shown at Serial No.536 and 760. Accordingly, the respondents shall include the name of the petitioner at its proper place taking into account the select list submitted by the U.P. Public Service Commission, after placing the petitioner in the proper place, he shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits.
11. Let the needful be done expeditiously, say within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of order is placed before the appropriate authority.
(Alok Mathur,J.)
Order Date :- 18.11.2024
KR
