Holding

The selection was based on merit, the presumption of genuineness of the official act applies, and the seniority list showing Respondent No.4 senior is upheld.

Summary

Dr. Kirpa Ram Mathur, appointed as Lecturer in Pathology in 1984, challenged a seniority list that placed him below Respondent No.4, claiming he had higher merit. After an initial government order in 1993 placed him senior, the High Court set aside that order and directed a fresh seniority determination under Rule 7(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Adhoc Appointments Rules, 1979, resulting in an order on 10 December 1998 showing Respondent No.4 senior. Mathur appealed, arguing that the Selection Committee had not disclosed marks and that his earlier acceptance of the merit determination for eight years created a presumption of genuineness. The Supreme Court held that the Selection Committee had indeed determined merit according to a prescribed procedure, that the presumption of genuineness applies when an official act is accepted for a long period, and that the High Court’s order was correct. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the seniority between the appellant and Respondent No.4 should be determined based on the merit ascertained by the Selection Committee under Rule 7(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation Rules.
Whether the presumption of genuineness of official acts applies when the appellant accepted the merit determination for over eight years.
Whether the failure of the State to produce the marks sheet at the appellate stage renders the selection process doubtful.

Subjects

seniorityservice lawmerit determinationselection committeepresumption of genuinenessRule 7(2)Uttar Pradesh regularisation rulesappointmentrepresentation

Judgment

A DR. KIRPA RAM MATHUR
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

OCTOBER 8, 2001

B [M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]

Service Law :

Seniority-Determination of-Representation challenging the seniority
C made ';;ifter8 years of selection-Dismissed by High Court-On appeal, held,
selection based on merit-Selection process cannot be held doubtful-Since
the appellant accepted the determination of merit .for 8 years, presumption of
genuinesses of official acts done in due course of perfonnmice of the duties
is attracted-Uttar Pradesh Regularisqtion of Adhoc Appointments (on posts
within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979-Rule 7(2).
D
The appellant in his representation dated 28.11.1992 after 8 years of
his selection, challenged the seniority list in which his name was shown
below Respondent No. 4. Accepting his claim Government ordered on
21.7.1993 that he would rank senior to Respondent No. 4. This order was
E challenged by the appellant and ·the High Court directed that a fresh
seniority be determined afresh in accordance with Uttar Pradesh
Regularisation of Adhoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the
Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, particularly Rule 7(2) thereof.
Consequently order dated 10.12.1998 was issued showing Respondent No.
4 senior to the appellant. Appellant unsuccessfully challenged the said
F
order before the High Court.

Appellant contended that as the respondent had not placed before
the Court the exact marks assigned to the appellant and Respondent No. 4,
and appellant having been issued appointment letter first in point of time
G he should be deemed to have secured better merit in the selection and
hence should be considered superior to Respondent No. 4.

Respondent No. 4 contended that Selection Committee had not
determined the merit and had only mentioned their names at random.

H Dismissing the appeal, the Court
650
K.R. MATHUR v. STATE [SETHI, J.] 651
HELD : 1. The reference to the procedure adopted for determining A
the merit by the Selection Committee unequivocally indicates that the
selection was based upon merit and ranking was given accordingly. Merely
because the respondent State has failed to produce the marks at this
belated stage cannot make the selection process either doubtful or be
termed as not based upon the comparative merits of the candidates
B
appearing before the Selection Committee. The presumption of genuineness
of the official acts done in the due course of performance of the duties is
attracted in the case particularly when the appellant accepted the position
of determination of the merit and ranking for a period of over 8 years as is
evident from order dated 21.7.1993, mentioning that the appellant had
submitted his representation only on 25.11.1992. [655-F; G; H; 656-A] c
2. The official record also revealed that respondent No. 4 was all
along treated better in merit than the appellant and rightly placed senior
to him. The appellant wants this court to re-appreciate the merit of the
persons who appeared before the Selection Committee at this belated stage
D
merely on the failure of the respondents to produce the actual marks
assigned to each one of the candidates. This is an after-thought and a stale
claim. [656-G; H]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7038 of 2001.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.99 of the Allahabad High Court
in C.M.W.P. No. 14371 of 1999.

- Yashank Pravin Adhyaru, H.S. Parihar, Kuldeep, S. Parihar and Pradeep
Parihar for the Appellant.

Sudhir Chandra Agrawala. and Subodh Markandeya S. Muralidhar,
S. Vallinayagam, Ms. Chitra Markandaya, Ms. Feroza Bano and A.S. Pundir
F

for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
SETHI, J. Leave granted.

Aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.1998 (Annexure P-7) passed by
respondent No. l, the appellant herein filed a writ petition in the High Court
challenging the fixation of his seniority by showing respondent No. 4 as senior
than him. Finding no merit, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A appellant vide the order impugned in this appeal. Alleging that the order of the
High Court was against law and the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc
appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commissio~)
Rules, 1979, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") the appellant has contended
that the order of the Government (Annexure P-7) and the impugned judgment
of the High Court are liable to be set aside.
B
The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant
and the respondent No.4, along with others, appeared at the interview held by
the Selection Committee appoint~d by the respon~ent No. I for the ad-~?c
appointment on the post of Lecturers in Pathology in the State Medical Colleges
C of Uttar Pradesh. He claimed that as he was higher in merit and ranking than
the respondent No. 4, his appointment letter No. 3496-Sec. 5-RA-18-84/Medical
Sec. I U.P. Govt. dated 4.5.1984 was issued and as respondent No. 4 was
allegedly lower in merit, letter of appointment No. 3497-Sec. 5-RA-18-84/
Medical Sec. I U.P. Govt. .dated 4.5.1984 was issued in his favour. .Issuance of
letter bearing No. 3496 being first in time than the letter No; 3497 issued in
D
favour of respondent No. 4 is stated to be the reflection of the merit determined
by the Selection Committee after the interview.
.,
Posts for Lecturer in Pathology in the State Medical Colleges of Uttar
Pradesh were advertised by the Public Service Commission of the State in
E January, 1989 for the purpose of regular appointment to the aforesaid post.
Both the appellant as well as the respondent No. 4 applied for the same and
their candidature was recommended by the Public Service Commission. On
7 .8.1989 the Rules were issued which applied to persons like the appellant and
the contesting respondent. On 31st December, 1990, the respondent-State
regularised services of both the appellant and respondent No. 4. In the order
F (Annexure P-4) it was mentioned that inter se seniority of the persons mentioned
in the list would be decided under the Rules later on. As the name of the
appellant was allegedly wrongly shown below respondent No. 4, he is stated
to have made a representation to the State Government which was accepted
vide order No. 282/Sec. 1-5-93-Code-14-Medical Sec. I Govt. of U.P. Lucknow
G dated 21.7.1993 by placing the appellant above the respondent No. 4 in the
seniority list. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent No. 4 filed Writ
Petition No. 3609 of 1995 in the High Court which was allowed by a Division
Bench on 24.4.1997 (Annexure P-6). After quashing the order dated 21. 7.1993
(Annexure P-5), the High Court directed that a fresh seniority be determined
in accordance with the Rules, particularly Rule 7(2) of the Rules. Consequently,
H
K.R. MATHUR v. STATE [SETHI, J.] 653
order impugned in the writ petition (Annexure P-7) dated 10.12.1998 was A
issued which was challenged by the appellant and his petition dismissed vide
the judgment impugned in this appeal.

~. The facts being not seriously disputed, the controversy between the
' contesting parties centres around the interpretation of Rule 7(2) of the Rules
in the light of determination of a merit of the parties at the time of selection. B
Both the appellant as well as the respondent No.. 4 claimed· that they were
shown senior than the other by the Selection Committee at the time of making
the selection. The appellant has contended that as the respondents have. not
placed before this Court the exact numbers assigned to the appellant and the
respondent No .. 4 at the time of making selection, he having been issued c
appointment letter first in point of time be deemed to have secured better merit
and ranking in the selection after interview. He has also contended that as the
respondent-State has not complied this Court's order dated 26.2.2001, it should
be presumed that the State has withheld the requisite record allegedly showing
_.._,. respondent No. 4 better in merit and ranking. Vide order dated 26.2.2001, this · D
Court had directed the State ofUttar Pradesh to produce the minutes of the
proceedings of the Selection Cominittee for the year 1989. In response to the
direction, affidavit of Shri R.S. Dubey, Special Secretary, Medical Education
of respondent-State has been filed stating therein that:

"That in obedience of the orders passed by this Hori'ble Court on E
08.01.2001 and 19.09.2001 a thorough and deligent search of the
"record of the marks" obtained by the petitioner and respondent
No. 4, during their selection held on 29.03.1984 was made both at the
level of the Secretariat and Directorate General of Medical Education
but, no "records of marks" obtained by the petitioner and the respondent F
No .4 at their selection on 29.03 .. 1984 was found. A close and careful
perusal of the proceedings of the Selection Committee shows that the
Selection Committee evolved the methodology and criteria, applied
the same itself to the candidates appearing before it and itself assigned

- the order of merit, to the candidates; no separate marksheet perhaps
was prepared. G

That various seniority list were issued by the State Govt. from time to
time, which invariably shows respondent No. 4 to be senior to the
petitioner and inspite of circulation thereof the petitioner never
challenged the said seniority lists." H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A Our attention has been drawn to the proceedings of the Selection
Committee held on March 28-29, 1984 for making adhoc: appointments of
lecturers in various specialities (Annexure R-1). The Selection Committee
meeting was attended by Director of Medical Education and Training, U.P.
(Chairman), Principal, LLRM Medical College, Meerut, PrinCipal, MIB Medical
College, Jhansi, Joint Director of Medical Education & Training, U.P. (Member
B
Secretary). In its proceedings, the Selection Committee has recorded as under:

"In every specialities two Technical Advisers were called for the
purpose of selection of the candidates. Their names have been mentioned
against each speciality.
c In order to eliminate the possibility of a handicap to a candidate
. who gets more than 80% of the total aggregate of 10 subjects ofMBBS
course, 50 marks have been allotted for the purpose. Rest of the marks
are to be calculated as follows:

D 1st four positions etc., have been calculated with 10 marks.

(a) Total of the passi11g marks obtained in all the ten subjects wili be
made. The percentage' will be thus calculated.

(b) Of this 1 (one) mark perfailure per subject will be deducted. This
E figure will be marks obtained out of 50,

2. The rest of the pattern will be as follows:

(a~ MS/MD/Ph.D./Mch/MAMS - 10 marks:
1st attempt - 10
F Ilnd attempt -6
Hird attempt -3

(b) Teaching experience: 10 marks, 3 marks for each year with a
maximum of 10 marks. •

G
(c) Research Paper - 5 marks.

(d) Interview - 15 marks. ·
·-·
•

Marks are to be rounded off upto Ist decimal place. In case
one or more candidates are bracketed 2nd decimal will be
considered.
H
K.R. MATHUR v. STATE [SETHI, J.] 655
The following candidates were selected by the Committee in the A
speciality noted below..... .

xxx xxx xxx
.PAXHOLOGY: STATE MEDICAL COLLEGES:
B
1. xxxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. Dr. Rajiv Kumar Misra c
5. Dr. Kripa Ram Mathur."

The minutes of the proceedings of the Selection Committee leave no
doubt in our mind that the merit of the candidates app~ing in the interview
was determined according to the procedure prescribed and having regard to the D
marks obtained by each one of them, their merit was determined. After due
process of selection, the appellant was shown junior than respondent No. 4.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 submitted that Vide
Annexure R-1, the Selection Committee had not determined the merit and
E
ranking of the persons appearing before it but had only mentioned their names
at random. It is contended that if the determination was on merit, the Committee
must have mentioned the numbers obtained by each one of the candidates
shown therein. Referring to Annexure P-5, he has contended as name of Dr..
Prem Kumar Singh and Smt. Sneh Lata are mentioned as junior than the
appellant and the respondent, the list cannot be held as based upon the
determination of the merit. The argument carrnot be accepted inasmuch as
Annexure P-5 stands already quashed by the High Court vide it judgment dated
24.4.1997 (Annexure P-6). The reference to the procedure adopted for
determining the merit by the Selection Committee unequivocally indicates that
the selection was based upon merit and ranking to the concerned was given G
accordingly. Merely J)ecause the respondent-State has failed to produce the·
marks at this belated stage canriot make the selection process either doubtful
or be termed as no based upon the comparative· merits of the candidates
appearing before the Selection Committee. The presumption of genl!ineness of
the official acts done in the. due course of performance of the duties is attracted
in the case particularly when the appellant accepted the position of determination H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A of the merit and rankiilg for a period of over 8 years as is evident from
Annexure P-5, mentioning that the appellant had submitted his representation
only on 25.11.1992.

While disposing of Writ Petition No, 3609 of 1995, the High Court, on
facts found that the seniority of the respondent No. 4 had been changed by
B completely ignoring Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the. Rules. After referring to the
Rule, the High Court_ held:

"The· relevant Rule 7(2) of the Rules envisages that if two or more
persons are appointed together, their. seniority inter se shall be
c. determined in the order mentioned in the order of appointment. Thus,
whenever, the question of determination of seniority arise, this. sub-
rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules cannot be lost sight of. It appears, may
be due to inadvertence or by any reason, sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the
Rules .h!ls not been taken into considerati.on and contrary to that
Annexure l@dated 21.7.1993 has been passed, which in our opinion,
D· cannot be allowed to stand.

This legal position cannot be disputed that no employee has a
right to promotion, but he has only right to be considered for promotion
according to the Rules (see Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India,
Juc;lgrrient Today 1992 (Supplementary) 169). This being so, the
E
impugned order, determining the seniority inter se betw-:~n the petitioner
and the respondent No. 3, is hereby quashed .... "

It may be mentioned herein that the appellant was a party-respondent in
that case and despite serv~ce of notice opted not.to file any counter affidavit.
It is also acknowledged that no appeal was filed against the aforesaid order
which attained finality so far as the rival claims between the parties to the
aforesaid writ petition are concerned. The High Court had found the order
dated 21.7.1993 to be against facts as well as the Rules.

G
The· official record also revealed that respondent No. 4 was all along ·
treated better in merit than the appellantand rightly placed senior to him. The
appellant wants this Court to re~appreciate the merit of the persons who appeared
·-
before the Selection Committee at this belated stage afresh merely on the
failure of the respondents to produce the. actual marks assigned each one of the
candidates. The arguments appears to be an after-thought besides being stale
H at this belated stage.
K.R. MATHUR v. STATE [SETHI, J.] 657
We do not find any illegality in the order of the High Court impugned A
in this appeal and the order of respondent No. I dated I 0.12.1998 by which
respondent No. 4 was shown senior than the appellant. There is no merit in this
appeal which is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.

...

-