STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusJALAL UDDIN AND ORS.

A                         ST A TE OF UTTAR PRADESH
                                       v.
                           JALAL UDDIN AND ORS.

                                OCTOBER 5, 2004

B                [ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]


         Service Law:

          U.P. Higher Education (Group A) Service Rules,1985/U.P. Government
C Servants Criteria for Recruitment by Promotion Rules,1994: r.16/rr.2 and 4-
    Principal of Government Degree College-Promotion-Criteria-High Court
    directing promotion on the basis of 1985 Rules;--State Government's plea that
    1985 Rules were no longer operative and, instead, 1994 Rules were
    applicable-Held, High Court to hear the writ petition afresh and to consider
D   applicability and effect of 1994 Rules to the facts of the case.

          Respondent no. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking
    a direction to the State Government to promote him as a Principal of the
    Government Degree College on the basis of seniority as envisaged by Rule
    16 of the U.P. Higher Education (Group-A) Service Rules, 1985. The writ
E   petition was allowed.

         In the appeal filed by the State Government it was contended that
    the High Court erred in ignoring the U.P. Government Servants Criterio
    for Recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994 and in applying the 1985 Rules,
    which were no longer operative:
F
         Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter back to the High
    Court, the Court

          HELD: In the counter affidavit filed by the State Government before
    the High Court, a clear reference was made to the U.P. Government
G   Servants Criteria for Recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994 and the
    amendment made in 1996, Though the High Court referred to some
    paragraphs of the counter affidavit, it did not take note of the 1994 Rules
    and its effect on the controversy. Therefore, the proper course would be
    to direct the High Court to hear the writ petition afresh. The applicability
H                                        92
                   ST ATE v. JALAL UDDIN [PASAYA T,J.]                         93
and the effect of the 1994 Rules to the facts of the present case shall be           A
considered by the High Court in the proper perspective. [95-E, F)

      N.K. Agarwal v. Kashi Gramin Bank, Varanasi (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1333;
Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR (1967) SC 1910 State
of Mysore and Anr. v. Syed Mahamood and Ors., AIR (1968) SC 1113 and
K.Samantaray v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR (2003) SC 4422, referred            B
to.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6511 of2004.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.2003 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.A. No. 6910 of 2001.                                                  C
     Dinesh Dwivedi, Ranvir Singh and Ms. Niranjana Singh for the
Appellant.

      Raj Kumar Gupta and A.N. Bardiyar for the Respondents.
                                                                                     D
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      ARIJIT PASAYA T, 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          E
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 NK. 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         F
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,               G
1985. According to the said rules, seniority subject to rejection of unfit was
the criteria in terms of Rule 16(1)(b).

      1.1 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                 H
    94                         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   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
B   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.
c         In response, learned counsel for the respondent No. I 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 petition. The distinction between the
    seniority-cum-merit and merit-cum-seniority consideration is too well known
D   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
E   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
F           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
G           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
H
                               STATE v. JALAL UDDIN [PASAYAT. J.]                      95
                   interest in having posts filled by the most able man? In other words,     A
                   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        B
          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      C
          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        D
          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     E
          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
                                                                                             F
          facts of the present case shall be considered by the High Court in the proper
          perspective. 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.   G
          R.P .                                                         Appeal allowed.



-   . '