As per case facts, respondent No.1 filed a writ petition seeking promotion as Principal of a Government Degree College, alleging that his juniors had been promoted while he was overlooked. ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 6511 of 2004
of 2004
PETITIONER:
State of Uttar Pradesh
RESPONDENT:
Jalal Uddin and Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/10/2004
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP ) No. 5002 of 2004)
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
The State of Uttar Pradesh calls in question legality of the
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The
writ petition was filed by the present respondent No.1 with the prayer
that he should be promoted as Principal of the Government Degree
College. Grievance was made that though his juniors have been promoted
but he had not been promoted. Relying on earlier judgment of the High
Court in N.K. Agarwal v. Kashi Gramin Bank, Varanasi (2003 (2) UPLBEC
1333), the writ petition was allowed. Direction was given that present
respondent No.1 should be promoted as Principal of a Government Degree
College with effect from the earliest date on which his juniors were
promoted, his seniority was to be fixed with effect from that date and
he shall be given arrears within two months. According to the High
Court, the criteria for promotion have to be so as given in Rule 16 of
the U.P. Higher Education (Group A) Service Rules, 1985. According to
the said rules, seniority subject to rejection of unfit was the
criteria in terms of Rule 16(1)(b).
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-State
submitted that the High Court completely ignored the relevant rules and
based its judgment on a rule which was no longer operative. The 1985
Rules had become inoperative in view of the Uttar Pradesh Government
Servant Criteria for Recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994 (in short the
'1994 Rules') as modified/amended from time to time. The said rules
have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution').
In Rule 2 it was clearly stipulated that the rules had over-riding
effect over any other rules made by the Government under the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution or otherwise. It is clearly stipulated
that the rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in any other rules as noted above. The High
Court proceeded to decide the case on the basis of 1985 Rules which was
not permissible to be done.
In response, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted
that even under the 1994 Rules the respondent was entitled to be
promoted and even though specifically the 1994 Rules have not been
referred to, the same was kept in view while deciding the writ
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
petition. The distinction between the seniority-cum-merit and merit-
cum-seniority consideration is too well known and needs no reiteration.
In all services, whether public or private there is invariably a
hierarchy of posts comprising of higher posts and lower posts.
Promotion, as understood under the Service Law Jurisprudence, is
advancement in rank, grade or both and no employee has right to be
promoted, but has a right to be considered for promotion. The
following observations in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and
Ors. (AIR 1967 SC 1910) are significant:
"The question of a proper promotion policy depends
on various conflicting factors. It is obvious that
the only method in which absolute objectivity can be
ensured is for all promotions to be made entirely on
grounds of seniority. That means that if a post
falls vacant it is filled by the person who has
served longest in the post immediately below. But
the trouble with the seniority system is that it is
so objective that it fails to take any account of
personal merit. As a system it is fair to every
official except the best ones; an official has
nothing to win or lose provided he does not actually
become so inefficient that disciplinary action has
to be taken against him. But, though the system is
fair to the officials concerned, it is a heavy
burden on the public and a great strain on the
efficient handling of public business. The problem,
therefore, is how to ensure reasonable prospect of
advancement to all officials and at the same time to
protect the public interest in having posts filled
by the most able man? In other words, the question
is how to find a correct balance between seniority
and merit in a proper promotion-policy."
The principles of seniority-cum-merit and merit-cum-seniority are
conceptually different. For the former, greater emphasis is laid in
seniority, though it is not the determinative factor, while in the
latter merit is the determinative factor. In The State of Mysore and
Anr. v. Syed Mahamood and Ors. (AIR 1968 SC 1113), it was observed that
in the background of Rule 4(3)(b) of the Mysore State Civil Services
(General Recruitment) Rules, 1957 which required promotion to be made
by selection on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, that the rule
required promotion to be made by selection on the basis of "seniority
subject to fitness of the candidate to discharge the duties of the post
from among persons eligible for promotion". It was pointed out that
where the promotion is based on seniority-cum-merit the officer cannot
claim promotion as a matter of right by virtue of his seniority alone
and if he is found unfit to discharge the duties of the higher post, he
may be passed over and an officer junior to him may be promoted. But
these are not the only modes for deciding whether promotion is to be
granted or not.
These aspects were highlighted in K. Samantaray v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2003 SC 4422).
It has to be noticed that in the counter affidavit filed by the
State, a clear reference was made to the 1994 Rules and the amendment
made in 1996. Though the High Court referred to some paragraphs of the
counter affidavit, it did not take note of 1994 Rules and its effect on
the controversy. We are therefore of the considered opinion that when
relevant rules have not been kept in view the proper course would be to
direct the High Court to hear the writ petition afresh. The
applicability and the effect of 1994 Rules to the facts of the present
case shall be considered by the High Court in the proper perspective.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion in that regard.
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to
costs.
In a significant ruling concerning civil service promotions, the Supreme Court of India in **State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jalal Uddin (Appeal (civil) 6511 of 2004)** addressed critical aspects of Promotion Criteria and their application within Service Law Jurisprudence. This pivotal judgment, delivered on October 5, 2004, by a bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and C.K. Thakker, is now readily available on CaseOn, offering comprehensive insights into its implications for public service employment and legal precedent. The Court delved into the proper application of rules governing promotions, particularly when older regulations conflict with newer, overriding stipulations.
The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by Jalal Uddin (Respondent No.1) in the Allahabad High Court. Jalal Uddin sought promotion to the position of Principal of a Government Degree College, contending that his juniors had been promoted while he had not. He relied on an earlier High Court judgment, *N.K. Agarwal v. Kashi Gramin Bank, Varanasi (2003 (2) UPLBEC 1333)*, to support his claim.
The High Court sided with Jalal Uddin, directing his promotion as Principal from the date his juniors were promoted, along with the fixing of his seniority and payment of arrears. The High Court's decision was predicated on Rule 16(1)(b) of the U.P. Higher Education (Group A) Service Rules, 1985 (hereinafter, '1985 Rules'), which stipulated 'seniority subject to rejection of unfit' as the criterion for promotion.
The central legal question was whether the Allahabad High Court correctly applied the U.P. Higher Education (Group A) Service Rules, 1985, for determining promotion criteria, or if these rules had been superseded by the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Criteria for Recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994 (hereinafter, '1994 Rules'). The State of Uttar Pradesh contended that the 1994 Rules, having overriding effect, should have been applied.
The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed the High Court's decision, arguing that the High Court had erroneously based its judgment on the 1985 Rules, which were no longer operative. The State emphasized that the 1994 Rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, had a clear overriding effect on all other existing rules concerning promotion.
Crucially, the State's counter-affidavit filed in the High Court had made explicit references to the 1994 Rules and subsequent amendments in 1996. Despite this, the Supreme Court observed that while the High Court acknowledged some paragraphs of the counter-affidavit, it failed to consider the applicability and impact of the 1994 Rules on the case.
The Supreme Court underscored the fundamental principle that once new rules with an overriding clause are enacted, they supersede previous conflicting rules. The High Court's failure to apply the correct, operative rules constituted a procedural error that necessitated intervention. The Bench clarified that the distinction between seniority-cum-merit and merit-cum-seniority is well-established in Service Law Jurisprudence and forms the bedrock of Promotion Criteria decisions.
Legal professionals analyzing complex rulings like this can significantly benefit from CaseOn.in's 2-minute audio briefs, which distill the essence of such judgments, making them accessible and easy to understand even for the busiest practitioners.
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had indeed erred by deciding the case based on the 1985 Rules, thereby overlooking the overriding 1994 Rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The case was remitted back to the Allahabad High Court with a directive to hear the writ petition afresh. The High Court was instructed to consider the applicability and effect of the 1994 Rules in the proper perspective, ensuring that the correct legal framework is applied to determine Jalal Uddin's promotion claim. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case itself, but rather correcting a procedural oversight in the application of governing rules.
This judgment serves as a vital reminder for lawyers, legal students, and public administration professionals about the hierarchy of legal rules and the impact of overriding clauses. It highlights:
All information provided in this analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts are made to ensure accuracy, readers should consult with a qualified legal professional for advice pertaining to their specific circumstances.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....