IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL vs Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sunil
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
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 4 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.
14. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. ( A l o k M a h r a , J.) ( Ra v i n d r a M a i t h a n i , J.) 1 8 .0 9 .2 0 2 5 1 8 .0 9 .2 0 2 5 Mam t a MA MTA RANI RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f 244f3e584af1449e430ef900 bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1 d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b 66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd 004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI +05'30' 5