Uttarakhand High Court
Rajbir Singh And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 18 September, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
Reserved on 09.09.2025
Delivered on 18.09.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Bench No. 367 of 2014
9th September, 2025
Rajbir Singh and Others ...........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ............Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sunil
Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Sushil Vashistha, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Vinay Kumar learned counsel for respondent no.2/UJVNL.
Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for respondent no.7.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. (Per.)
The present writ petition is preferred by the
petitioners challenging the order dated 03.07.2012
passed by the Public Service Tribunal, Uttarakhand,
whereby the claim petition filed by them seeking
correction in the seniority list dated 06.02.2010 of Junior
Engineers in Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited
(UJVNL) was dismissed. The petitioners have sought a
declaration that the said seniority list is illegal, arbitrary,
and void ab initio, and that their seniority ought to be
placed above the private respondents, who were
appointed later.
2. Brief facts of the case, as per record, are that
after the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, two sister
corporations, namely Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd.
(UPCL) and Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. (UJVNL),
were established to oversee electricity generation and
distribution. Both corporations followed common
recruitment procedures at certain points. In November
2001, UPCL advertised posts for Assistant Engineers and
Junior Engineers in Civil, Electrical, and Mechanical
disciplines. UJVNL requested UPCL to recruit 20 Junior
Engineers (Mechanical), 20 Junior Engineers (Electrical),
and 15 Junior Engineers (Civil) for UJVNL's
requirements. The selection process was conducted by
UPCL for Civil and Electrical branches via written test
and interview, and the final list of selected candidates
was furnished to UJVNL. Since UPCL did not have
immediate requirements for Mechanical Junior
Engineers, it forwarded candidates who qualified in the
written test to UJVNL for conducting interviews and final
selection. The petitioners were appointed as Junior
Engineers on 28.12.2002, whereas the private
respondents were appointed subsequently on 12.03.2003
as Junior Engineers (Apprentice). The petitioners contend
that their appointment being prior in time ought to
determine their seniority over the private respondents,
irrespective of the marks obtained in the selection
process.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners
would submit that the service conditions and
determination of seniority for Junior Engineers in UJVNL
are governed by the U.P. State Electricity Board
Subordinate Electrical and Mechanical Engineering
Service Regulations, 1972 ("Service Regulations, 1972")
and U.P. State Electricity Board Employees Seniority
Regulations, 1998 ("Seniority Regulations, 1998"), which
have been adopted by UJVNL and are still applicable. He
would further submit that Regulation 5 of the Service
Regulations, 1972, provides that appointments to the
post of Junior Engineers are made through direct
recruitment as well as by promotion.
4. Learned senior counsel would further submit
that Regulation 5(b)(i) specifies that appointment by
direct recruitment is made from candidates like
Apprentice Supervisors selected in accordance with part
4 of the Regulations; that, since the appointment is made
from multiple sources, the inter-se seniority is governed
by Regulation 8 of the Seniority Regulations, 1998. The
petitioners argue that both they and the private
respondents were not appointed from one selection and
that, being appointed earlier, they are entitled to seniority
over the private respondents. In support of his case, he
relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 301 of
2011.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
no.2/UJVNL and respondent no.7 would submit that that
even if Regulation 8 is considered, Regulation 8(2-a)
provides that the inter-se seniority of persons appointed
by direct recruitment shall be determined by merit as
decided by the selection committee; that, the private
respondents claim that they were placed above the
petitioners in the merit list and, therefore, are entitled to
seniority irrespective of appointment dates.
6. The sole issue before this Hon'ble Court is
whether appointment prior in time by one selection
confers seniority, or whether merit as determined by the
selection committee prevails in determining inter-se
seniority between employees appointed through the same
recruitment process.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
8. Though a specific definition of "selection" is not
provided in the Regulation, but, the process of selection
commences with the issuance of the advertisement and
concludes with the preparation of the select list for
appointment. The process involves various stages such as
inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of
defective applications or elimination of ineligible
candidates, conducting examinations, calling candidates
for interviews or viva voce, and ultimately preparing the
list of successful candidates for appointment.
9. It is undisputed that both the petitioners and
the private respondents were selected pursuant to the
same advertisement issued by UPCL in November 2001. A
common written test was conducted for the selection of
Junior Engineers across the Civil, Electrical, and
Mechanical streams. The mere fact that the petitioners
were appointed earlier does not automatically confer
seniority where the recruitment process covered multiple
candidates and final selection was based on merit.
Regulation 8(2-a) of the Seniority Regulations, 1998
clearly mandates that pursuant to any one selection inter-
se seniority of those appointed by direct recruitment is to
be determined according to merit as decided by the
Selection Committee.
10. The Court distinguishes the judgment in Writ
Petition (S/B) No. 301 of 2011, as the facts and legal
issues involved are materially different from the present
case, therefore, the same is not applicable in the present
case.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India
v. Mohan Lal Capoor (1973) 2 SCC 836 has clearly
stated that seniority issues should be decided based on
the service rules, if framed, and the principle that merit is
more important when all candidates are selected through
the same process. Simply being appointed earlier,
without merit or through a separate selection process,
does not give a person a right to claim higher seniority.
12. In view of the above, this Court holds that
the impugned seniority list dated 06.02.2010, prepared in
accordance with merit as determined by the selection
committee, cannot be set aside merely on the ground of
earlier appointment. Thus, no interference is called for.
13. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
14. No order as to costs.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
18.09.2025 18.09.2025
Mamta
MA
MTA
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f
244f3e584af1449e430ef900
bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1
RANI
d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b
66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd
004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2025.09.19 11:14:29
+05'30'
