# Binay Kumar Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 253
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-25
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 21727 of 2023
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/binay-kumar-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54576
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

4 All. Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
253
and the fresh written examination
was held after the year 2019, then in view
of the last paragraph of the notification
dated 22.05.2019 and since the written
examination was conducted in more than
one shift, the normalization rule was
adopted and applied and, hence, there
was not flaw in the procedure followed.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
respective parties and having perused the
records while I find that there is no mention
of the advertisement bearing No. 2examination 2018 in the notification dated
22.05.2019 but the counsel for petitioner
could not dispute that the selection process
that was undertaken pursuant to the said
advertisement had already been annulled
prior to the date of notification dated
22.05.2019.
In
such
circumstances,
therefore, the Commission was at liability
to issue fresh notification for holding
written
test
and
accordingly
those
candidates who had applied earlier pursuant
to the advertisement were permitted to
participate in the written examination that
was held on 26.06.2023. The last paragraph
of the notification dated 22.05.2019 which
has become relevant here is reproduced
below:

"उल्लेखनीर् है कक आर्ोग के आगामी
ववज्ञापनों के सापेक्ष प्राप्त आवेदन पत्रों की
सांख्र्ा के अनुसार जहाां एक से अधिक भशपटों
में परीक्षा आर्ोजजत की जार्ेंगी उन परीक्षाओां
पर उतत नामालाइजेशन प्रकिर्ा लागू की ज
सकेगी।
आर्ोग
द्वारा
लागू
की
गर्ी
नामालाइजेशन प्रकिर्ा का सूत्र (formul) सुलि
सांदिा हेतु सांलग्न।"

6. From a bare reading of the
aforesaid paragraph it transpires that the
Commission
intended
to
apply
normalization rules in all such written
examinations that are either notified under
the
notification
dated
22.05.2019
or
otherwise to be held in future where tests
are to be held in two shifts. In my
considered view, unless and until the
normalization rules itself are questioned to
be flawed one, the commission cannot be
said
to
have
faulted
in
applying
normalization
rules
to
all
future
examination pursuant to the notification
dated 22.05.2019.

7. Even otherwise and looking to
the object I find that normalization rules
have been made applicable on account of
different set of question asked in different
set of papers and to do justice to the
candidates as the questions may be tough in
some ways and easier in other ways and so
a balance is to be struck for the purposes of
creating merit list. Nothing has been argued
before me as to why the normalization rule
is bad and hence should not have been
applied. In my considered view since the
written test has been held subsequently to
the notification dated 22.05.2019, the
Commission was fully justified in applying
normalization to the test in question.

8. Petition lacks merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 253
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ A No. 21727 of 2023

Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Saroj Kumar Yadav, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

1. Service Law-Constitution of India,
1950-
Article
226-The
Uttar
Pradesh
Transport (Subordinate) Technical Service
Rules,
1980
-
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Government Servants Seniority Rules,
1991 - The Uttar Pradesh Public Services
(Reservation
of
Scheduled
Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes) Act, 1994-Section 3(7) - The
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servants
Seniority (First Amendment) Rules, 2002Rule 8A- It is undisputed that petitioners were
senior at the time of recruitment before
enforcement of Section 3(7) of Act, 1994
alongwith
Rule
8A
of
Rules,
1991
i.e.,
reservation in promotion, they are entitled for
promotion against the selection year 2007-08 &
2008-09 for which junior to them i.e. Scheduled
Caste Category candidates have been promoted
vide
order
dated
31.12.2008.
In
that
eventuality, they were also entitled for their
names in seniority list, at serial Nos. 196 & 197,
which was earlier given to S.C. category
candidates--- There is no denial of the fact that
prior
to
amendment
in
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servants
Seniority
(First
Amendment) Rules, 2002 (inserting Rule 8A),
petitioners are entitled for promotion against
the selection year 2007-08 & 2008-09 alongwith
seniority at serial No. 196 & 197 prior to
Scheduled Caste category candidates.
2. In light of facts of the case specially,
recommendation of three members committee
dated 2.2.2023 and clarification of Transport
Commissioner dated 21.7.2023 it is apparently
clear that in granting notional seniority to
petitioners, there is no legal impediment except
the Government Order dated 21.8.2015, which
provides that candidate of unreserved category
shall not claim any additional emoluments or
personal pay on the ground of their seniority,
otherwise petitioners are fully entitled for
notional seniority for selection year 2007-08 &
2008-09 at serial No. 196 & 197 in seniority list-
--There is undertaking of the petitioners before
this Court that they will not claim any additional
emoluments or special pay in terms of
Government
Order
dated
21.8.2015---
Respondents are directed to grant notional
seniority to petitioners placing them at Serial
Nos. 196 & 197 in seniority list alongwith all
consequential benefits.

Petition allowed. (Para 16, 23, 24 & 26)
(E-15)

List of Cases referred-:

1. Uttar Pradesh Power Corp. Ltd. Vs Rajesh
Kumar & ors.(2012) 7 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Saroj
Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed
with the following prayers:-

"(i) Issue a suitable writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
21.11.2023
passed
by
the
Principal
Secretary, Transport Department, U.P.
Government, Lucknow.

(ii) Issue a suitable writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to promote
the petitioners to the posts of Regional
Transport Officer treating their names
placed at serial Nos. 196 and 197 of the
seniority
list
of
Assistant
Regional
Transport Officer with effect from the date
the other Assistant Regional Transport
Officer below in the seniority after 196 &
197 have been promoted.

(iii) Issue a suitable writ, order
or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to place the
petitioners at serial Nos. 196 & 197 of the
seniority
list
of
Assistant
Regional
4 All. Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
255
Transport Officer and to provide all
consequential benefit of the same."

3. Brief facts of the case are that
U.P. Public Service Commission has issued
advertisement for the appointment on the
post of Regional Inspector (Technical)/
Technical Inspector. Pursuant to the
advertisement,
petitioners
have
been
recommended for selection on the said post
alongwith 12 other candidates including 5
Scheduled
Caste
category
candidates,
namely, Satish Kumar, Anand Nirmal,
Ashok Kumar, Munshi Lal and Rajesh
Kardam. After submission of joining on the
post of Regional Inspector (Technical)/
Technical Inspector, petitioner no.1 was
placed in the seniority list at serial no. 61
and petitioner no. 2 was at serial no. 62
whereas
Scheduled
Caste
category
candidates namely, Satish Kumar, Anand
Nirmal, Ashok Kumar, Munshi Lal and
Rajesh Kardam were placed at serial nos.
65, 67, 71, 72, 73.

4.
The
service
condition
of
petitioners are governed by the provision of
Uttar Pradesh Transport (Subordinate)
Technical Service Rules, 1980 (hereinafter
referred to as Rules, 1980). The seniority of
petitioners are governed by the provision of
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servants
Seniority Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred
to as Rules, 1991). Reserved category
candidates are also entitled for benefit of
promotion in terms of Uttar Pradesh Public
Services (Reservation of Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to
as Act 1994).

5. The State of Uttar Pradesh in
terms of Act, 1994, amended the Rules,
1991
by
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servants Seniority (First Amendment)
Rules, 2002 (inserting Rule 8A), which
provides
consequential
seniority
to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes
category
candidates
after
promotion.
Providing the benefit of reservation in
promotion, junior to petitioners, namely,
Satish Kumar, Anand Nirmal, Ashok
Kumar, Munshi Lal and Rajesh Kardam
were given promotion on the post of ARTO
alongwith seniority vide order dated
31.12.2008 for selection year 2007-08 &
2008-09 and they have been placed in the
seniority list at Serial Nos. 196 to 200.
Later on, petitioner nos. 1 & 2 were also
promoted on the post of Assistant Regional
Transport Officer (in short ARTO) vide
orders dated 21.11.2012 & 8.4.2013 and
they have been placed in the seniority list at
Serial Nos. 227 & 229.

6. Section 3(7) of Act, 1994 and
Rule 8A of Rules, 1991 were challenged
before this High Court and ultimately
matter went up before Apex Court in the
matter
of
Uttar
Pradesh
Power
Corporation Limited vs. Rajesh Kumar
and others reported as (2012) 7 SCC 1 in
which Apex Court vide judgment and order
dated 27.4.2012 declared the Section 3(7)
of Act, 1994 and Rule 8A of Rules, 1991
ultra vires.

7. For compliance of order of Apex
Court,
State
Government
has issued
Government Orders dated 08.05.2012 and
21.8.2015. By the aforesaid Government
Orders, benefit of seniority extended to
category of Scheduled Caste category
candidates has been withdrawn and they
have been reverted in the seniority list
below the unreserved category candidates
who were senior and promoted later on.
Government
Order
dated
21.8.2015
provides that candidate of unreserved
category shall not claim any additional
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
emoluments or personal pay on the ground
of their seniority.

8.
The
Principal
Secretary
Transport, Anubhag-3, Lucknow vide order
dated 9.9.2015 passed an order reverting
the candidate who had been earlier given
the benefit of reservation in promotion
namely, Satish Kumar, Anand Nirmal,
Ashok Kumar, Munshi Lal and Rajesh
Kardam. Later on vide order dated
27.1.2016 their new seniority have been
fixed and placed at serial No. 231A, 232A,
235A, 235B & 235C.

9. Learned Senior Advocate on
behalf of petitioners submitted that in light
of aforesaid facts, now in the seniority list,
serial No. 196 to 200 become vacant and
same
is
still
vacant.
Undisputedly,
petitioners are senior to similar Scheduled
Caste category candidates, namely, Satish
Kumar, Anand Nirmal, Ashok Kumar,
Munshi Lal and Rajesh Kardam, therefore,
after judgment of Apex Court, they are
entitled for promotion from the date on
which junior to them were promoted i.e.
31.12.2008 against the vacancy of selection
year 2007-08 & 2008-09. After compliance
of judgment of Apex Court, junior to them
were kept below in seniority list, petitioners
have not been given notional seniority from
the date they were entitled i.e. 31.12.2008.
He also pointed out that petitioners are not
claiming any additional emoluments or
personal pay in light of Government order
dated 21.08.2015 and they are only
claiming notional seniority.

10. He next submitted that for the
appointment on the post of ARTO, there
are three feeding cadres, 50% by direct
recruitment
and
50%
by
promotion.
Further, out of 50% of promotion, 25%
from Regional Inspector (Technical) and 25
% from Passenger/Goods Tax Officer. He
also pointed out that between 31.12.2008 to
21.11.2012 from other feeding cadre
appointment/promotion was made on the
post of ARTO and they became senior to
petitioners. Without notional seniority, they
are deprived from promotion on the next
higher post i.e. Regional Transport Officer
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
R.T.O.).
Therefore, petitioner has approached this
Court by filing Writ-A No. 5956 of 2022
before the Lucknow Bench, which was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
14.9.2022 with liberty to file fresh petition.
Thereafter, petitioners have filed another
Writ-A No. 16767 of 2023 before this
Court, which was disposed of vide order
dated 12.10.2023 with direction to State
Government to decide the representation of
petitioner. Petitioners had submitted the
representation along with certified copy of
order dated 12.10.2023

11.
After
receiving
the
representation, State Government vide
order dated 13.5.2023 has called report
from Transport Commissioner. Upon that
three members committee was constituted
and
Additional
Divisional
Transport
Commissioner
(Administration/Enforcement)
alongwith
letter dated 9.2.2023 submitted the report
dated
2.2.2023
of
three
members
committee before the Principal Secretary,
U.P. Govt. recommending to grant the
notional seniority to petitioners alongwith
three other employees against the vacant
posts for selection year 2007-08 & 200809. After receiving the said report, Joint
Secretary, Transport Section-3, Lucknow
vide order dated 3.5.2023 has raised six
queries with regard to implementation of
recommendation
of
three
members
committee. The said letter was replied by
Transport Commissioner vide letter dated
4 All. Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
257
21.7.2023 justifying the recommendation
of three members committee for giving the
notional seniority at Serial Nos. 196, 197
against the selection year 2007-08 & 200809, but surprising claim of petitioner for
notional seniority at serial No. 196 & 197
has been rejected vide impugned order
dated 21.11.2023. In the impugned order
dated 21.11.2023, recommendation of three
members committee as well as clarification
of Transport Commissioner in favour of
petitioners has not been disputed, but only
ground taken is that they cannot be given
any extra emoluments or special pay in
terms
of
government
order
dated
21.8.2015 and cannot be granted notional
seniority for selection year 2007-08 &
2008-09.

12. He firmly submitted that
petitioners undertake before the Court
that they would not claim any extra
emoluments or special pay in terms
Government Order dated 21.8.2015 in
case of grant of notional seniority. He
further pointed that due to non re-fixation
of seniority of petitioners at serial No.
196 & 197 as recommended by three
members
committee,
petitioners
are
suffering irreparable loss as they became
junior to those candidates who were
appointed/promoted on the post of ARTO
from
other
feeding
cadre
between
31.12.2008 to 21.11.2022 and deprived
from promotion on the next higher post
i.e. R.T.O.

13.
He
also
submitted
that
recently for notional promotion on the
post of ARTO, Principal Secretary, Govt.
of U.P. has written letter dated 21.1.2025
to Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission to grant notional promotion
to the officers in the same department
working on the post of Passenger/Goods
Tax Officer. He has produced the letter no.
iz0e0 142@rhl&3&2024 dated 21.1.2025,
which is taken on record.

14.
Learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
has
opposed
the
submission and submitted that in terms of
Government
Order
dated
21.8.2015,
petitioners are not entitled for emoluments
or
special
pay,
therefore,
notional
promotion may not be granted.

15. Being confronted by the Court,
he could not dispute the fact that seniority
list from Serial Nos. 196 to 200 is still
vacant and in case notional seniority is
given to petitioners, seniority of none other
personnel would be disturbed, there are
three feeding cadres for the post of ARTO
and
further
there
is
positive
recommendation
of
three
members
Committee as well as clarification of
Transport Commissioner in favour of
petitioners for grant of notional promotion.
He also could not dispute about the letter
dated 21.1.2025 written by Principal
Secretary, Govt. of U.P. to Secretary, Uttar
Pradesh Public Service Commission for
granting notional promotion on the post of
ARTO to all the officers working on the
post of Passenger/Goods Tax Officer.

16. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
record. It is undisputed that petitioners
were senior at the time of recruitment
before enforcement of Section 3(7) of Act,
1994 alongwith Rule 8A of Rules, 1991
i.e., reservation in promotion, they are
entitled for promotion against the selection
year 2007-08 & 2008-09 for which junior
to them i.e. Scheduled Caste Category
candidates have been promoted vide order
dated 31.12.2008. In that eventuality, they
258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were also entitled for their names in
seniority list, at serial Nos. 196 & 197,
which was earlier given to S.C. category
candidates. In the counter affidavit, there is
no denial of the fact that prior to
amendment in Uttar Pradesh Government
Servants Seniority (First Amendment)
Rules, 2002 (inserting Rule 8A), petitioners
are entitled for promotion against the
selection
year
2007-08
&
2008-09
alongwith seniority at serial No. 196 & 197
prior
to
Scheduled
Caste
category
candidates.

17.
I
have
perused
the
recommendation
of
three
members
committee report dated 2.2.2023 submitted
alongwith letter dated 9.2.2023. Relevant
part
of
the
same is
being
quoted
hereinbelow:-

 "अतः सनमनत का यह सुनवचाररत मत ह नक मा०
सवोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पाररत आदेश नदनांक 27.04.2012 के
समादर में पदोन्ननत में आरक्षण एवं पररणामी ज्येष्ठता का लाभ प्राप्त
कर नदनांक 15.11.1997 से 28.04.2012 तक प्रोन्नत
कनमटयो (श्री सतीश कुमार, श्री आनन्द ननमटल, श्री अशोक कुमार,
श्री मुंशीलाल एवं श्री राजेश कदम) के पदावनत हो जाने से उक्त
चयन वषट 2007-08 एवं 2008-09 में ररक्त 05 पदो के
सापेक्ष श्री नवनय कुमार नसंह व श्री सत्येन्द्र प्रकाश नसंह एवं अन्य
03 कानमटको का चयन सहायक सम्भागीय पररवहन अनधकारी के
पद पर करते हुए ननयमानुसार ज्येष्ठता का ननधाटरण शासन स्तर पर
नवचार कर नकया जा सकता है।"

18. From perusal of the aforesaid
report, it is apparently clear that there is
clear
recommendation
in
favour
of
petitioners and three other persons to grant
seniority as prayed.

19. After receiving the report, State
Government has sought six queries from
the Transport Commissioner and thereafter,
Transport Commissioner has given specific
reply to the six queries on 21.7.2023.
Relevant reply of the query is being quoted
below:-

प्रथताववत
ज्र्ेष्ठता ननिााररत
ककर्े
जाने
फलथवरूप
ककसी
अन्र् काभमाक की
ज्र्ेष्ठता प्रिाववत
तो नही होगी।

'kklu ds dk;kZy; vkns'k la0& 1482@30-314-73 जीर्ब्लू/1990, दद० 05.06.2014
द्वारा सीिी िती / पदोन्ननत से ननर्ुतत
सहार्क सम्िागीर् पररवहन अधिकारी
की ज्र्ेष्ठता सूची ननिााररत की गर्ी।
उतत ज्र्ेष्ठता सूची में चर्न वषा 200708 एवां 2008-09 में सांिागीर् ननरीक्षक
(प्राववधिक) कोटे से चर्ननत काभमाकों की
ज्र्ेष्ठता िमशः श्री सतीश कुमार
(अनु०जा०) (ज्र्ेष्ठता िमाांक-196), श्री
आनन्द ननमाल (अनु०जा०) (ज्र्ेष्ठता
िमाांक-
197),
श्री
अशोक
कुमार
(अनु०जा०) (ज्र्ेष्ठता कमाांक- 198), श्री
मुांशी लाल (अनु०जा०) (ज्र्ेष्ठता कमाांक-
199) एवां श्री राजेश कुमार (अनु०जा०)
(ज्र्ेष्ठता कमाांक- 200) ननिााररत की
गर्ी तिा श्री ववनर् कुमार भसह की
ज्र्ेष्ठता-227 एवां श्री सत्र्ेन्र प्रकाश भसांह
की ज्र्ेष्ठता-229 ननिााररत की गर्ी।
पुनः पदावननत काभमाकों में से सम्िागीर्
ननरीक्षक सांवगा के श्री सतीश कुमार, श्री
आनन्द ननमाल, श्री अशोक कुमार, श्री
मुांशीलाल एवां श्री राजेश कदाम, जोकक
सांिागीर् ननरीक्षक (प्राववधिक) के पद से
सहार्क सम्िागीर् पररवहन अधिकारी के
पद पर पदोन्ननत हुए िे। उ० प्र० शासन,
पररवहन अनुिाग-3 के कार्ाालर्-आदेश
सां0-1482/ 30-3-2014-73जीर्ब्लू / 90,
दद० 05.06.2014 द्वारा जारी सहार्क
सम्िागीर् पररवहन अधिकारी सांवगा की
ज्र्ेष्ठता सूची को श्री सतीश कुमार, श्री
आनन्द ननमाल, श्री अशोक कुमार, श्री
मुांशीलाल एवां श्री राजेश कदाम के
पदावननत के उपरान्त उ० प्र० शासन,
पररवहन अनुिाग-3 के कार्ाालर्-ज्ञाप
सां0-178/ 30-3-16-73 जीर्ब्लू/'90, दद०
27.01.2016 द्वारा सांशोिन करते हुए
उतत काभमाकों की ज्र्ेष्ठता िमशः श्री
सतीश कुमार (अनु०जा०) (ज्र्ेष्ठताः
कमाांक-231ए),
श्री
आनन्द
ननमाल
4 All. Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
259
(अनु०जा०) (ज्र्ेष्ठता कमाांक- 232ए), श्री
अशोक कुमार (अनु०जा०) (ज्र्ेष्ठता
िमाांक- 235ए) श्री मुांशी लाल (अनु०जा०)
(ज्र्ेष्ठता 255 एवां श्री राजेश कुमार
(अन्नु0जा0) (वररष्ठता िमाांक 235सी)
ननिााररत की गर्ी।
उतत काभमाकों की ज्र्ेष्ठता नवीन
ननिााररत हो जाने से ज्र्ेष्िता िमाांक 106
से 200 सक वतामान में ककन्त्री काभमाक की
ज्र्ेष्ठता ननिााररत नहीां है।
ददनााँक 11.01.2023 की सभमनत द्वारा
बैठक कर उपलब्ि कराई गर्ी कार्ावृत्त के
अनुसार िर्म वषा 2007-00 पूवा 2008-09
में ररतत 05 पदों के सापेक्ष श्री ववनर्
कुमार भसांह र्े श्री सत्र्ेन्र प्रकारा भसांह एवां
अन्र् ०३ काभमाकों का चर्न सहार्क
सम्िागीर् पररवहन अधिकारी क पद पर
ननर्मानुसार पदौन्ननत कप ज्र्ेष्ठता 196
से 200 तक ननिाारण की जाने हेतु अपना
अभिमत ददर्ा गर्ा है।
अतः ककसी अन्र् काभमाक की ज्र्ेष्ठना
प्रिाववत नही होगी।

20. From perusal of the aforesaid
reply,
clarification
of
Transport
Commissioner
is
also
in
favour
of
petitioners and three other persons with
specific averment that in seniority list at
serial no. 196 to 200 is still vacant and
further after granting notional seniority,
seniority of none other personnel shall be
affected.

21. I have perused the counter
affidavit as well as impugned order. There
is no denial or dispute about the facts so
mentioned in three members committee
report as well as clarification of Transport
Commissioner. The only reason is given
that in terms of Government Order dated
21.8.2015, petitioners are not entitled for
any additional emoluments or special pay,
therefore, notional seniority for selection
year 2007-08 & 2008-09 cannot be granted.

22. Further, this is not the first time
claim of notional seniority has been raised
by the officer of the department. Vide letter
dated 21.1.2025, Principal Secretary, Govt.
of U.P. has written letter to Secretary, U.P.
Public Service Commission for granting
notional promotion on the post of ARTO to
the certain officers of the department, who
was
working
on
the
post
of
Passenger/Goods Tax Officer, therefore, in
light of such facts mentioned hereinabove,
there is no legal impediment in granting the
notional seniority and consequential benefit
of promotion to petitioners also.

23. In light of facts of the case
specially,
recommendation
of
three
members committee dated 2.2.2023 and
clarification of Transport Commissioner
dated 21.7.2023 it is apparently clear that in
granting notional seniority to petitioners,
there is no legal impediment except the
Government Order dated 21.8.2015, which
provides that candidate of unreserved
category shall not claim any additional
emoluments or personal pay on the ground
of their seniority, otherwise petitioners are
fully entitled for notional seniority for
selection year 2007-08 & 2008-09 at serial
No. 196 & 197 in seniority list.

24. Now coming to the present
case, there is undertaking of the petitioners
before this Court that they will not claim
any additional emoluments or special pay
in terms of Government Order dated
21.8.2015 and further in light of facts that
serial No. 196 to 200 are sill vacant in
seniority list and in granting the aforesaid
seniority, seniority of none other personnel
would be affected, therefore, petitioners are
fully entitled for notional seniority and
260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
denial of that by the impugned order is
absolutely bad and liable to be set aside.

25. Therefore, under such facts and
circumstances of the case, the impugned
order dated 21.11.2023 is hereby set aside
and writ petition is allowed. No order as
to costs.

26. Respondents are directed to
grant notional seniority to petitioners
placing them at Serial Nos. 196 & 197 in
seniority list alongwith all consequential
benefits. It is further directed that after
fixation
of
notional
seniority,
if
promotion is due on next higher post,
process of promotion shall also be
completed.

27. The aforesaid exercise shall
completed maximum within a period of
two months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.

28. It is made clear that petitioners
shall not claim any additional emoluments
or special pay as provided in Government
Order dated 21.8.2015 after grant of
notional seniority.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 260
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.04.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 23727 of 2018

Yogendra Giri ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Meenakshi Singh Parihar, Anwar Ashraf

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Alok
Sharma,
Rakesh
Kumar
Chaudhary

Service Law-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article
226
-The
Uttar
Pradesh
Cooperative Societies Employees Service
Regulations,
1975
-
Regulation
85-
'SUBLATO FUNDAMENTO CADIT OPUS'---
The findings of the Inquiry Officer/ inquiry
report is liable to be set aside/ quashed
inasmuch as the departmental inquiry has been
conducted and concluded without fixing date,
time and place for oral inquiry and without
affording ample opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner---The
very
foundation
of
the
impugned punishment order is based on the
defective inquiry report which is not liable to be
sustained in the eyes of law, therefore, the
impugned punishment order is liable to be set
aside/ quashed---Impugned order quashed on
the basis of maxim "sublato fundamento
cadit opus", which means that if the very
foundation
of
any
structure
goes,
the
superstructure erected thereon would also fall.
Writ petition allowed. (Para 19) (E-15)

List of Cases referred-:

1. U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & ors.Vs L.P.
Rai reported in (2007) 7 SCC 81

2. Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank &
ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570

3. St. of U.P. & ors.Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha
reported in AIR 2010 SC 3131

4. St. of Pun. Vs Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar &
ors.connected with Sumedh Singh Saini Vs
Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & ors., reported in
(2011) 14 SCC 770

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Shri Anwar Ashfaq,
learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Standing Counsel for the opposite
party No.1 as well as Shri Alok Sharma,
learned counsel for the opposite party
Nos.2
to
7.