LUCKNOW vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Public

defined as commencing from first of July of a calendar year and would continue till 12 months subsequently. He has also adverted to explanation indicated in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1991. On a conjoint reading thereof, it has been submitted that in terms of the explanation to Rule 5, regular selectees in a particular year of recruitment are required to be placed higher in the seniority list than persons selected through other modes of recruitment. It is therefore submitted that since petitioners and the answering opposite parties have been selected and appointed between 01.07.2002 and 30.06.2003, then in terms of explanation to Rule 5, petitioners were required to be placed over and above the answering opposite parties in the seniority list.

5. In response thereto, learned State counsel has submitted on the basis of supplementary counter affidavit dated 14.02.2025 that the petition is barred by considerable laches and interference would entail unsettling a settled position since the first final seniority list pertaining to the posts was issued on 23.09.2003 with subsequent final seniority list being issued on 09.12.2004,

05.12.2007, 15.05.2008, 13.06.2012, 10.07.2012,

19.03.2013 and finally on 26.04.2018.

6. It is submitted that despite such a number of 3 WRIA No. 7696 of 2022 occasions available to petitioners to challenge the aforesaid seniority, no challenge was ever raised by petitioners to the aforesaid seniority list in which the answering opposite parties were placed over and above the petitioners. It is therefore submitted that petitioners are barred by principle of estoppel.

7. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on judgments rendered in the cases of K.R. Mudgal & Ors. Versus R.P. Singh & Ors. reported in (1986) 4 Supreme Court Cases 531, Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and Ors. Versus State of Orissa and Ors. reported in (2010)12 Supreme Court Cases 471 and Prafulla Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. & Ors. passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (S/S) No.8702 of 2017.

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners, a perusal of Seniority Rules of 1991 make it evident that recruitment year has been indicated to commence from first July of a calendar year and continues for a further 12 months. The explanation to Rule 5 no doubt indicates that with regard to selections made in an year, the regularly selected candidates would features over and above those candidates selected through other methods, specifically emergency modes.

9. However it is also evident on record that subsequent to selection of petitioners as well as answering opposite parties, at least eight final seniority list have been issued by the department. It is not the case of petitioners that any objection was raised by them at any stage with regard to the aforesaid seniority 4 WRIA No. 7696 of 2022 list. It is also admitted that it is on the basis of such seniority list that petitioners were subsequently granted at least three promotions.

10. The aforesaid aspect has already been adjudicated upon by Supreme Court in the case of K. R. Mudgal (Supra) in the following manner:

7. The respondents in the writ petition raised a preliminary objection to the writ petition stating that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of lakhhes. Although the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have not disposed of the above writ petition on the ground of delay, we feel that in the circumstances of this case the writ petition should have been rejected on the ground of delay alone. The first draft seniority list of the Assistants was issued in the year 1958 and it was duly circulated amongst all the concerned officials. In petitioners had been shown below the respondents. No objections were received from the petitioners against the seniority list. Subsequently, the seniority lists were again issued in 1961 and 1965 but again no objections were raised by the writ petitioners, to the seniority list of 1961, but only Petitioner 6 in the writ petition represented against the seniority list of 1965. We have already mentioned that the 1968 seniority list in which the writ petitioners had been shown above the respondents issued a misunderstanding of the Office Memorandum 5 WRIA No. 7696 of 2022 of 1959 on the assumption that the 1949 Office Memorandum was not applicable to them. The June 1975 seniority list was prepared having regard to the decision in Ravi Varma case [(1972) 1 SCC 379 : AIR 1972 SC 670 : (1972) 2 SCR 992] and the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the writ petitions filed by Respondents 7 and 36 and thus the mistake that had crept into the 1968 list was rectified. Thus the list was finalised in January 1976. The petitioners who filed the writ petition should have in the ordinary course questioned the principle on the basis of which the seniority lists were being issued from time to time from the year 1958 and the promotions which were being made on the basis of the said lists within a reasonable time. For the first time they filed the writ petition in the High Court in the year 1976 nearly 18 years after the first draft seniority list published

1958. Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst government servants created by the writ petitions filed after several years as in this case. It is essential that anyone who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him should approach the court as early as possible as otherwise in addition to the creation of a sense of insecurity in the minds of the government servants there would also be administrative complications and difficulties. Unfortunately in this 6 WRIA No. 7696 of 2022 case even after nearly 32 years the dispute regarding the appointment of some of the respondents to the writ petition is still lingering in this Court. In these circumstances we consider that the High Court rejecting preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the writ petition on the ground of laches. The facts of this case are more or less similar to the facts in R.S. Makashi v.I.M. Menon [(1982) 1 SCC 379 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 77 : (1982) 2 SCR 69] . In the said decision this Court observed at page 100 of the Reports thus : (SCC p. 400, para 30) “In circumstances, consider that the High Court was wrong in overruling the preliminary objection raised by the respondents before it, that the writ petition should dismissed preliminary ground of delay and laches, inasmuch as it seeks to disrupt the vested rights regarding the seniority, rank and promotions which had accrued to a large number of respondents during the period of eight years that had intervened between the passing of the impugned resolution and the institution of petition. We accordingly hold that the challenge raised by the petitioners against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of March 22, 1968 ought to have been 7 WRIA No. 7696 of 2022 rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay and laches and the writ petition insofar as it related to the prayer for quashing the said Government Resolution should have been dismissed.”

11. Subsequently in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra) the following has been held: "30. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R. Mudgal, this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains existence 3 4 unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, furnishing satisfactory explanation."

12. Recently a Coordinate Bench of this Court has also considered the said aspect in the case of Praful Kumar Mishra (supra) in the following manner:- "26. Likewise, the Apex Court in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra) has held as under:- "18. The question of entertaining 8 WRIA No. 7696 of 2022 the petition disputing the long standing seniority filed at a belated stage is no more res integra. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Ramchandra Shanker Deodhar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 259, considered the effect of delay in challenging promotion seniority list and held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as it seeks to disturb the vested rights of other persons regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have accrued to them during the intervening period. A party should approach the Court just after accrual of the cause of complaint. While deciding the said case, this Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments, particularly in Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898, wherein it observed principle, on which the Court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on the ground of laches or delay, is that the rights, which have accrued to others by reason of delay in filing the writ petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless a reasonable explanation for delay. The Court further observed as under:- 9 WRIA No. 7696 of 2022 "A claiming fundamental rights must move the Court before others' rights existence. The action of the Courts cannot harm innocent parties if their rights emerge by reason of delay on the part of person moving the court."

13. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the present facts and circumstances, it is thus evident that granting relief or indulgence to petitioners would unsettle a position which has been settled for the past twenty three years.

14. In view of the fact that petitioners have not raised any grievance or objection to at least 8 final seniority list issued earlier, they would be bound by principle of estoppel.

15. In view of discussion made here-in-above, the petition fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 21, 2025 Subodh/- (Manish Mathur,J.) SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

defined as commencing from first of July of a calendar year and would continue till 12 months subsequently. He has also adverted to explanation indicated in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1991. On a conjoint reading thereof, it has been submitted that in terms of the explanation to Rule 5, regular selectees in a particular year of recruitment are required to be placed higher in the seniority list than persons selected through other modes of recruitment. It is therefore submitted that since petitioners and the answering opposite parties have been selected and appointed between 01.07.2002 and 30.06.2003, then in terms of explanation to Rule 5, petitioners were required to be placed over and above the answering opposite parties in the seniority list.

5. In response thereto, learned State counsel has submitted on the basis of supplementary counter affidavit dated 14.02.2025 that the petition is barred by considerable laches and interference would entail unsettling a settled position since the first final seniority list pertaining to the posts was issued on 23.09.2003 with subsequent final seniority list being issued on 09.12.2004,

05.12.2007, 15.05.2008, 13.06.2012, 10.07.2012,

19.03.2013 and finally on 26.04.2018.

6. It is submitted that despite such a number of 3 WRIA No. 7696 of 2022 occasions available to petitioners to challenge the aforesaid seniority, no challenge was ever raised by petitioners to the aforesaid seniority list in which the answering opposite parties were placed over and above the petitioners. It is therefore submitted that petitioners are barred by principle of estoppel.

7. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on judgments rendered in the cases of K.R. Mudgal & Ors. Versus R.P. Singh & Ors. reported in (1986) 4 Supreme Court Cases 531, Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and Ors. Versus State of Orissa and Ors. reported in (2010)12 Supreme Court Cases 471 and Prafulla Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. & Ors. passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (S/S) No.8702 of 2017.

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners, a perusal of Seniority Rules of 1991 make it evident that recruitment year has been indicated to commence from first July of a calendar year and continues for a further 12 months. The explanation to Rule 5 no doubt indicates that with regard to selections made in an year, the regularly selected candidates would features over and above those candidates selected through other methods, specifically emergency modes.

9. However it is also evident on record that subsequent to selection of petitioners as well as answering opposite parties, at least eight final seniority list have been issued by the department. It is not the case of petitioners that any objection was raised by them at any stage with regard to the aforesaid seniority 4 WRIA No. 7696 of 2022 list. It is also admitted that it is on the basis of such seniority list that petitioners were subsequently granted at least three promotions.

10. The aforesaid aspect has already been adjudicated upon by Supreme Court in the case of K. R. Mudgal (Supra) in the following manner:

7. The respondents in the writ petition raised a preliminary objection to the writ petition stating that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of lakhhes. Although the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have not disposed of the above writ petition on the ground of delay, we feel that in the circumstances of this case the writ petition should have been rejected on the ground of delay alone. The first draft seniority list of the Assistants was issued in the year 1958 and it was duly circulated amongst all the concerned officials. In petitioners had been shown below the respondents. No objections were received from the petitioners against the seniority list. Subsequently, the seniority lists were again issued in 1961 and 1965 but again no objections were raised by the writ petitioners, to the seniority list of 1961, but only Petitioner 6 in the writ petition represented against the seniority list of 1965. We have already mentioned that the 1968 seniority list in which the writ petitioners had been shown above the respondents issued a misunderstanding of the Office Memorandum 5 WRIA No. 7696 of 2022 of 1959 on the assumption that the 1949 Office Memorandum was not applicable to them. The June 1975 seniority list was prepared having regard to the decision in Ravi Varma case [(1972) 1 SCC 379 : AIR 1972 SC 670 : (1972) 2 SCR 992] and the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the writ petitions filed by Respondents 7 and 36 and thus the mistake that had crept into the 1968 list was rectified. Thus the list was finalised in January 1976. The petitioners who filed the writ petition should have in the ordinary course questioned the principle on the basis of which the seniority lists were being issued from time to time from the year 1958 and the promotions which were being made on the basis of the said lists within a reasonable time. For the first time they filed the writ petition in the High Court in the year 1976 nearly 18 years after the first draft seniority list published

1958. Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst government servants created by the writ petitions filed after several years as in this case. It is essential that anyone who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him should approach the court as early as possible as otherwise in addition to the creation of a sense of insecurity in the minds of the government servants there would also be administrative complications and difficulties. Unfortunately in this 6 WRIA No. 7696 of 2022 case even after nearly 32 years the dispute regarding the appointment of some of the respondents to the writ petition is still lingering in this Court. In these circumstances we consider that the High Court rejecting preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the writ petition on the ground of laches. The facts of this case are more or less similar to the facts in R.S. Makashi v.I.M. Menon [(1982) 1 SCC 379 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 77 : (1982) 2 SCR 69] . In the said decision this Court observed at page 100 of the Reports thus : (SCC p. 400, para 30) “In circumstances, consider that the High Court was wrong in overruling the preliminary objection raised by the respondents before it, that the writ petition should dismissed preliminary ground of delay and laches, inasmuch as it seeks to disrupt the vested rights regarding the seniority, rank and promotions which had accrued to a large number of respondents during the period of eight years that had intervened between the passing of the impugned resolution and the institution of petition. We accordingly hold that the challenge raised by the petitioners against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of March 22, 1968 ought to have been 7 WRIA No. 7696 of 2022 rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay and laches and the writ petition insofar as it related to the prayer for quashing the said Government Resolution should have been dismissed.”

11. Subsequently in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra) the following has been held: "30. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R. Mudgal, this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains existence 3 4 unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, furnishing satisfactory explanation."

12. Recently a Coordinate Bench of this Court has also considered the said aspect in the case of Praful Kumar Mishra (supra) in the following manner:- "26. Likewise, the Apex Court in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra) has held as under:- "18. The question of entertaining 8 WRIA No. 7696 of 2022 the petition disputing the long standing seniority filed at a belated stage is no more res integra. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Ramchandra Shanker Deodhar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 259, considered the effect of delay in challenging promotion seniority list and held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as it seeks to disturb the vested rights of other persons regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have accrued to them during the intervening period. A party should approach the Court just after accrual of the cause of complaint. While deciding the said case, this Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments, particularly in Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898, wherein it observed principle, on which the Court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on the ground of laches or delay, is that the rights, which have accrued to others by reason of delay in filing the writ petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless a reasonable explanation for delay. The Court further observed as under:- 9 WRIA No. 7696 of 2022 "A claiming fundamental rights must move the Court before others' rights existence. The action of the Courts cannot harm innocent parties if their rights emerge by reason of delay on the part of person moving the court."

13. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the present facts and circumstances, it is thus evident that granting relief or indulgence to petitioners would unsettle a position which has been settled for the past twenty three years.

14. In view of the fact that petitioners have not raised any grievance or objection to at least 8 final seniority list issued earlier, they would be bound by principle of estoppel.

15. In view of discussion made here-in-above, the petition fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 21, 2025 Subodh/- (Manish Mathur,J.) SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench