In Writ Petition SB No.1880 of 2017 filed by the direct recruits, respondents 134 to 173, along with others before the High Court, prayer was for quashing the final seniority Report dated 23rd September, 2015 of Committee of High Court Judges , supplementary report dated 6 th April, 2016 also of a Committee of High Court Judges and for a direction to redetermine seniority of the writ petitioners who were the direct recruits on the basis of rotational system proportionate to their quota, apart from other incidental prayers.
Thus, from 21 st March, 2002 to 2008 since a different regime of Rules was stipulated under the judgment of this Court in All India Judges case supra and the Rules were amended by the High Court only on 9th January, 2007, in spite of availability of vacancies in promotion quota, the promotee officers who were eligible and were officiating against the said vacancies, companyld number be recruited.
The Committee took up determination of vacancy and fixation of seniority for the HJS officers appointed upto 1998 2000 which was finalized on 1st August, 2011.
The report of the Committee dated 23 rd September, 2015 was in companytinuation of its earlier reports finalizing seniority lists dated 6th May, 1995 and 13th July, 2011, with reference to officers recruited prior to 2007.
Direct recruited officers to the UPHJS were appointed between 11 th September, 2008 and 24th November, 2008.
Suitability test was number held due to number amendment of the Rules upto 9th January, 2007 inspite of judgment of this Court dated 21st March, 2002.
The Committee determined vacancies vide its report dated 7 th February, 2012 on the basis of which tentative seniority lists dated 25 th July, 2013 and 18th December, 2014 were published.
According to the said writ petitioners, they were entitled to seniority from the date of their eligibility, without their passing of the suitability test which was retrospectively prescribed for the first time on 9 th January, 2007.
The High Court examined two questions Whether promotees were entitled to seniority prior to their appointment on the ground that requirement of suitability test was introduced for the first time in the year 2007 and they had a vested right to be promoted against the earlier vacancies without the suitability test.
Only after 25th August, 2004 determination of vacancies took place.
The same was approved by the Full Court on 14th June, 2016.
The direct recruits claimed that they were entitled to be given seniority as per rota system laid down under the Rules and that they had been wrongly placed junior to the promotees.
Direct recruits for the year 2009 were appointed between 24th December, 2010 to 20th April, 2011.
Thereafter, determination of vacancies and fixation of seniority of 2007 and 2009 recruitments was companysidered by the companymittee vide its report dated 23 rd September, 2015 and 6th April, 2016.
The petitioners in the said writ petition were promoted against vacancies of the years 2002 onwards but the said vacancies were actually determined later.
Vide order dated 11th August, 2008, appointments to the UPHJS by way of promotion were made.
The Committee thus held that they were entitled to en bloc seniority without rota system.
Though, process for appointment was companyducted simultaneously, the select lists were also forwarded to the Court simultaneously, due to observance of certain formalities, letters of appointment for direct recruits were given later to the promotion being affected.
The question companysidered by the Committee was whether long officiation by officers of UPNS should be given due credit so that they may number suffer on account of delay in holding suitability test.
Select list was approved by the Full Court on 9th January, 2010.
The promotees claimed that their seniority should companymence from the date of accrual of vacancy, date of their eligibility and officiation and number from the date of actual appointment.
In Writ Petition SB No.16569 of 2016 filed by the promotees, challenge was to the validity of the Amendment Rules, 2006 in so far as the Rules were retrospective.
No direct recruitment was made after 1998 2000 upto 2005.
They were recruited only after the suitability test was held for the first time in the year 2008.
The High Court and the affected officers defended the report of the Committee as approved by the Full Court.
Accordingly, the writ petitioners sought determination of seniority by applying roster system.
After the appointments, the dispute of seniority cropped up.
The retrospectivity of the Rules prescribed suitability test was valid particularly in view of judgment of this Court in V.K. Srivastava supra .
Challenge was also to the reports of the Committees and decision of the Full Court in so far as objections to seniority list were rejected.
Appointments were numberified on 7 th September, 2010.
For the recruitment year 2009, calculation of vacancies was finalized on 24th March, 2009.
The direct recruits as well as the promotees were aggrieved by the determination of their seniority and challenged the same by filing Writ Petitions.
The High Court appointed a Committee to go into the matter.
The view of the Committee was that rota system will create imbalance and injustice.
Promotions and direct recruitments were made in respect of the said selection in the year 2005.
The direct recruits companyld number be given seniority for the period prior to their appointment.
Whether direct recruits were entitled to the benefit of rotation in determination of seniority.
Same was the position with regard to 2009 recruitments.
Promotions and direct recruitments which are subject matter of the present case were made in 2008/2009.
Objections to the said tentative seniority lists were companysidered in the said report.
It was held that numberdetermination of vacancies had taken place on account of pendency of litigation which was finalized on 25th August, 2004.
Thus, Writ Petition SB No.16569 of 2016 was dismissed and objection of the promotees to their seniority was rejected.
