# Sanjay Kumar Shukla & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1353
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-17
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 300 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Rajeev Bharti
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-kumar-shukla-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52750
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

C.S.C., Ashwani Kumar Singh, Gaurav
Mehrotra, Santosh Kumar Tripathi

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the appellants could claim seniority
over private respondents on the basis of alleged
higher marks in the Sub-Inspector (Civil Police)
Ranker Examination (2000-2008), despite not
challenging the earlier select list (2012) or the
final seniority list (2017) within a reasonable
time.

HEADNOTES
Civil
Law
-
U.P.
Sub-Inspector
and
Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules,
2008 - Rule 16 (f), 19, - U.P. SubInspector and Inspector (Civil Police)
Service Rules, 2015 - Rule - 22 - Special
Appeal - assailing the judgment and order - by
which the single bench dismissed the writ
petition, on the ground of delay and latches -
notification for vacancy for recruitment of S.I. in
Civil Police -- writ petition - seniority dispute of
Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police) in Uttar Pradesh,
arising from the Ranker Examination (20002008) - The appellants, though appointed later
in 2015-2016 pursuant to the Supreme Court's
directions of 18.07.2014, sought seniority over
private respondents who had been appointed
earlier in 2012 - Court dismissed their writ
petition being filed in 2020 on grounds of delay
and laches - court observed that, the appellants
never challenged the original select list, training,
or postings of private respondents, nor did most
of them object to the tentative seniority list of
2017 - The Court emphasized that seniority is
determined by placement in the select list, not
by marks, and that the Supreme Court had
already protected the appointments of 3358
candidates in 2014 - The challenge to Rule 22 of
the 2015 Rules was also rejected due to
absence of specific pleadings - hence, the
appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principles
of finality of litigation, bar of delay, and held
that objections to seniority must be timely
raised
-
special
appeal
is
accordingly,
dismissed.(Para - 27, 28, 30)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED

## Text

_Characters 0–39,892 of 41,024. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39892 for what follows._

11 All. Sanjay Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1353
image
of
the
Opposite
Party
No.2/Complainant for the simple reason
that it is admitted on record that he was not
on sanctioned leave accorded by the
Company and letter was sent by the
Company
that
he
was
absconding,
therefore, he was directed to join the duty.
The record further indicates that he had
given two legal notices to the Company
asking his dues. In case dues are not paid, it
was incumbent upon Opposite Party
No.2/Complainant to raise his service
grievance before the appropriate forum but
he did not adopt the recourse to meet out
his grievances or service dispute, rather
he filed criminal complaint case which
appears to be malafide out of malice just
to settle his personal score which is
deprecated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra). The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pepsi Foods Ltd. (Supra) has held that
summoning of an accused in a criminal
case is a serious matter. Criminal law
cannot be set into motion as a matter of
course. The Magistrate has to examine
the nature of allegations made in the
complaint and the evidence both oral and
documentary in support thereof. The
Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the
time
of
recording
of
preliminary
evidence before summoning of the
accused.

49.
Dictionary
meaning
of
"absconding"
also
indicates
various
suggestions.
Cambridge
Dictionary
indicates "to go away suddenly and secretly
in order to escape from somewhere".
Oxford Learner's Dictionary defines the
meaning of "abscond" to the extent that
abscond (from something) to escape from a
place that you are not allowed to leave
without permission.

50. The aforesaid meaning also
suggest that the Company had used the
word "absconding" in show cause notice
issued to Opposite Party No.2/Complainant
who did not join the duty for a longtime. At
the
most,
the
Opposite
Party
No.2/Complainant could have approached
the appropriate forum to settle his service
dispute.

51. Considering the aforesaid, the
applications i.e. APPLICATION U/s 482
No. 9706 of 2025 and APPLICATION
U/s 482 No. 9802 of 2025 are allowed.
The impugned orders dated 06.09.2025,
18.10.2025 and 17.02.2025 are set aside.
The entire proceedings arising out of
Complaint Case No. 9669 of 2024 pending
before the trial Court are quashed qua the
Applicants namely Kamal Agrawal and
Satya Prakash Tiwari.

52. Office is directed to communicate
this judgment to the trial Court for
information and necessary compliance
forthwith.
---------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1353
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

Special Appeal No. 300 of 2021

Sanjay Kumar Shukla & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Rishabh Tripathi, Akhilesh Kumar Kalra,
Lalta Prasad Misra, Rama Kant
1354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ashwani Kumar Singh, Gaurav
Mehrotra, Santosh Kumar Tripathi

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the appellants could claim seniority
over private respondents on the basis of alleged
higher marks in the Sub-Inspector (Civil Police)
Ranker Examination (2000-2008), despite not
challenging the earlier select list (2012) or the
final seniority list (2017) within a reasonable
time.

HEADNOTES
Civil
Law
-
U.P.
Sub-Inspector
and
Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules,
2008 - Rule 16 (f), 19, - U.P. SubInspector and Inspector (Civil Police)
Service Rules, 2015 - Rule - 22 - Special
Appeal - assailing the judgment and order - by
which the single bench dismissed the writ
petition, on the ground of delay and latches -
notification for vacancy for recruitment of S.I. in
Civil Police -- writ petition - seniority dispute of
Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police) in Uttar Pradesh,
arising from the Ranker Examination (20002008) - The appellants, though appointed later
in 2015-2016 pursuant to the Supreme Court's
directions of 18.07.2014, sought seniority over
private respondents who had been appointed
earlier in 2012 - Court dismissed their writ
petition being filed in 2020 on grounds of delay
and laches - court observed that, the appellants
never challenged the original select list, training,
or postings of private respondents, nor did most
of them object to the tentative seniority list of
2017 - The Court emphasized that seniority is
determined by placement in the select list, not
by marks, and that the Supreme Court had
already protected the appointments of 3358
candidates in 2014 - The challenge to Rule 22 of
the 2015 Rules was also rejected due to
absence of specific pleadings - hence, the
appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principles
of finality of litigation, bar of delay, and held
that objections to seniority must be timely
raised
-
special
appeal
is
accordingly,
dismissed.(Para - 27, 28, 30)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
1. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rameshwar
Prasad (1976) 2 SCC 37
2. S.B. Dogra v. State of Himachal Pradesh
(1992) 4 SCC 455
3. Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal
Agarwal (2011) 5 SCC 394
4. State of U.P. v. Labh Chand, AIR 1994 SC
754
5. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India (2023)
11 SCC 432

LIST OF ACTS
U.P. Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police)
Service Rules, 2008 - U.P. Sub-Inspector and
Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015 -
U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991
- U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 -
Limitation Act, 1963

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Delay and Laches - Seniority List - SubInspector (Civil Police) Ranker Examination -
Select
List
-
Rule
22
(2015
Rules)
-
Constitutional Validity - Tribunal Jurisdiction -
Service Dispute - Continuous Cause of Action -
Supreme Court Directions.

CASE ARISING FROM
Arising out of dismissal of Writ Petition No.
12394 (S/S) of 2020 by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench -
Related to recruitment and seniority disputes in
U.P. Police Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) Ranker
Examination, 2000-2008.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Sanjay Kumar
Shukla and others,
Counsel for Respondent(s): C.S.C., Ashwani
Kumar Singh, Gaurav Mehrotra, Santosh Kumar
Tripathi.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.
&
Hon'ble Rajeev Bharti, J.)

1. Heard. Vakalatnama of Sri Anjani
Kumar Misra, Advocate is taken on record.

2. By means of this appeal the
appellants have assailed judgment and
11 All. Sanjay Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1355
order dated 27.07.2021 passed in writ
petition no. 12394 (S/S) of 2020 by which
the writ petition of the appellants herein has
been dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches.

3. The appellants had filed the above
mentioned writ petition in 2020 seeking the
following reliefs :-

"(a) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned orders dated
19.05.2020, 11.06.2020, 3.7.2020 issued by
the Opp-party no. 3. the true copies of
which are contained as Annexure-1, 2 and
3 respectively to this writ petition and the
final seniority list dated 11.12.2017, the
true copy of which is contained as
Annexure-4 to this writ petition.

(b) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding to the Opp-parties to draw
one select list of all the selectees through
U.P. Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Ranker
Examination 2000-2008 under Rule 16(f) of
U.P. Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil
Police) Service Rules, 2008 and thereafter
to prepare the list of appointees of such
selectees in order of their merit under Rule
19 of these 2008 Rules and to prepare a
final seniority list in accordance with the
U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules.
1991 read with Rule 22 of 2008 Rules
before issuing any promotion order for the
post of Inspector of Police (Civil) out of the
selectees of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police)
Ranker Examination, 2000-2008.

In the alternative to issue a writ,
order or direction in appropriate nature
declaring Rule 22 of the U.P. SubInspector and Inspector (Civil Police)
Service Rules, 2015 as ultra-vires to the
Constitution of India.

(c) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding
to
the
Opp-parties
to
determine a final seniority list of SubInspector (Civil Police) by placing such
selectees of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police)
Ranker Examination, 2000-2008 having
secured more marks and being senior as
Constable/Head Constable above such
selectees having secured lesser marks or
being junior as Constable/Head Constable
and to make further promotion to the post
of inspector of Civil Police etc. on that
basis.

(d) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the Opp-parties 1 to 4 not to issue
any appointment letter to the Opp-parties
nos. 7 to 896 appointing them as Inspector
of Civil Police and may further be pleased
to restrain the said Opp-parties from
sending any other person for receiving the
training of Inspector of Civil Police on the
basis of the above impugned seniority list,
the true copy of which is contained as
Annexure-4 to this writ petition."

The writ Court has dismissed the writ
petition on ground of delay and laches.

4. The facts of the case in brief are that
recruitment was set in motion for filling up
vacant posts of Sub Inspector Civil Police
in the State of U.P. and a notification was
issued in this regard on 12.06.2010.
Accordingly, an exam was conducted
namely
Sub-Inspector
(Civil
Police)
Ranker Examination, 2000-2008 and the
vacancy was for the said period, that is,
2000 to 2008. The written examination was
held on 13.03.2011 wherein the appellants
and
the
private
respondents
herein
appeared. The result was published. It is
not out of place to mention that the
appellants herein were already working in
1356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the U.P. Police department as Police
Constables, etc. that is on the Feeder post
and they were entitled to be considered for
promotion to the aforesaid post of (Sub
Inspector Civil Police) albeit on the basis of
departmental examination by whatever
name called. The result of the aforesaid
departmental examination was published
on 21.06.2011 in which the name of the
private respondents herein figured but the
name of the appellants did not figure. The
appellants did not succeed whereas private
respondents succeeded. This result was
never put to challenge by the appellants
before us, but some other unsuccessful
candidates filed a writ petition bearing no.
3918 (S/S) of 2011, wherein final order
was passed on 03.08.2012. The said order
reads as under :-

"Heard Mr. L.P. Mishra, Mr.
Manish Kumar, Mr. K.S. Pawar, Mr.
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Mr. Amit Bose and
others for the petitioners.

Mr. I.P. Singh learned Chief
Standing Counsel and Mr. Badrul Hasan
Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of
U.P., Mr. J.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate,
Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, Senior Advocate, ,
Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, Mr. R.C. Tiwari,
Mr. Mr. Manjeev Shukla, Mr. Santosh
Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Ashish Chaturvedi,
Mr. Shyam Kinkar Pandey, Mr. Prakhar
Mishra, Mr. S.C. Yadav and Mr. Talha
Abdul Rahman for the respondents.

The petitioners are aggrieved
with the process of selection of U.P. Sub
Inspector
(Civil
Police)
Ranker
Examination,
2000-2008
on
various
grounds, therefore, they have prayed to
quash the result of the written examination
of the said selection. Simultaneously they
have also prayed to provide full marks for
the questions of mathematics which have
been cancelled for the reason of multiple
correct answers shown against them.

At this stage State Government as
well as the candidates who have qualified
in the written examination are interested to
be sent for training on the premise that
against 5389 vacancies as advertised by
means of notification dated 12th June, 2012
(Annexure no.-3 to the writ petition) only
3358 candidates have qualified in the
written
examination.
In
result
2031
vacancies are still available for selection
from amongst the qualified candidates. In
order to qualify in the written examination
the cut off marks have been fixed as 50%
minimum marks of the total marks of the
written examination. Total 300 marks were
fixed for written examination which were
classified into 4 subjects (1) Hindi Essay --
100 marks (2) Substantive Law --100 marks
(3) Numerical and Mental Ability Test --50
Marks and (4) Mental Aptitude and
Reasoning Test --50 Marks.

The Selection Board published
the model question paper and its answers
in its website whereby the third and fourth
subject were proposed separately with the
50 marks each but at the time of
examination instead of indicating the
separate subject of third and fourth, the
Selection Board provided only one paper
for both the subject containing Part-A and
Part-B. In Part-A there was only Numerical
question and in Part-B the question of
Mental Aptitude and Reasoning etc. were
given.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submits that some candidates
had been expecting to be successful on the
basis of the Mental Ability test in
comparison to the Numerical question,
however, since the Numerical Aptitude
questions were missing they could not be
successful.
11 All. Sanjay Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1357

It is pertinent to mention here
that in the whole examination total 18
questions were cancelled due to multiple
correct answers shown against them.
However, the petitioners' case is that, it is
not their fault as they have answered those
questions correctly. Ultimately after the
argument at length keeping in view the
facts that 2031 vacancies are still available
for selection from amongst the qualified
candidates as has been pointed out by the
State Government through its affidavit filed
on 25.05.2012, the petitioners instead of
pressing their relief to quash the whole
selection confined their alternative relief to
award
them
the
marks
against
the
cancelled questions in general as those
have been cancelled not at their fault but at
the fault of the Selection Board.

The petitioners are working as
Constables and Head Constables. The
matter
of
petitioners
promotion
are
governed under the U.P. Sub Inspectors
and Inspectors (Civil Police) Service Rules,
2008. Rule -16 of the said rules provides
the procedure for recruitment by promotion
to the post of Sub Inspector. The marks
awarded in the written test are also
relevant for preparation of the final merit
list. Since the petitioners are not at fault in
cancellation of the question papers, I feel it
appropriate to issue direction to award the
respective full marks against those 18
questions
to
all
the
petitioners
for
preparation of the eligibility list for the
next stage of the selection process so that
they should not be put to be disadvantaged
for their correct answers. Since it is
difficult to verify the candidates who have
answered those question correctly, in the
interest of justice I feel it appropriate to
issue direction to the respondents to award
the full marks of all those questions in their
favour
in
rational
manner
without
discriminating any body. Since these marks
are relevant for preparation of the final
merit list I hereby also provide that
simultaneously the candidates who have
qualified the written examination shall also
be added with the marks as is asked to
award the petitioners to judge their final
merit in the examination save with their
qualified status. State shall proceed for
next step forthwith.

Since the petitioners have to
cross several stages to reach the stage of
training and the qualified candidates after
going through those stages are waiting for
training, I hereby permit the respondents to
sent the candidates, who have qualified the
written examination, for training but those
shall have no claim to be placed over and
above to the petitioners in the merit list, as
the placement in the merit list of all the
candidates shall be on the basis of marks
awarded finally in accordance with rules
and the promotion orders shall be issued
accordingly.

It is also clarified that the
unsuccessful candidates who are not before
this Court shall have no right to claim the
benefit of order passed by this Court.

Since nothing remains for further
adjudication, the writ petitions stand
disposed of finally with the consent of the
parties except the State."

5. In nutshell what the learned Single
Judge ordered was that full marks be awarded
in respect of 18 questions to the writ
petitioners as also to the qualified candidates,
meaning thereby the respondents herein. As
the benefit of the said order was restricted to
the petitioners before the writ court and not to
others who may have been similarly situated,
therefore, some persons filed an appeal
bearing Special Appeal No.577 of 2012;
Ranvijai Pratap Singh and ors. vs. State of
U.P. and ors., wherein an interim order was
passed on 30.08.2012 which reads as under :-
1358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"9.
Till
3.9.2012,
further
operation of the impugned judgment and
order
dated
3.8.2012
shall
remain
suspended and, no person shall be sent for
training in pursuance of the order dated
3.8.2012. Those candidates, who have
already been sent for training in pursuance
of the result declared originally, shall
continue with the training which shall be
subject to further orders of this Court."

6. By the above quoted order operation
of the impugned order dated 03.08.2012
passed by the learned Single Judge was
suspended and it was further observed that
no person shall be sent for training in
pursuance to the said order, however, those
candidates who had already been sent for
training in pursuance to the result declared
originally would continue with the training
which shall be subject to further orders of
the division bench. It is not out of place to
mention that in the interregnum that is on
17.07.2012, 3241 candidates were ordered
to undergo training. On 07.01.2013, a
further interim order was passed in above
mentioned Special Appeal No.577 of 2012,
staying the order dated 27.07.2012, by
which posting was provided to trainee
officers. The order dated 07.01.2013 reads
as under :-

"We have heard learned counsel
for parties and perused the pleadings of
Special Appeal.

Looking to the background of the
case which seems to be shrouded with
confusion on sending of Police Personnels
to training centre towards promotion on
the post of the Sub Inspectors without
following changed rules in respect of old
vacancies, we have no option but to stay
the order dated 27.12.2012 providing
postings to such trainee officers.

List the matter on 23.01.2013 for
final disposal as Item No.1."

7. The matter went up to the Supreme
Court in Special Leave Petition (C)
No.34100
of
2013
and
after
being
converted into Civil Appeal No.9688 of
2013 it was allowed on 07.01.2013 with a
direction to decide the special appeal
within six months. The said special appeal
was not decided as was ordered by the
Supreme Court. Certain persons filed
Special Leave Petition (C) No.2702 of
2014 which was converted into Civil
Appeal No.6547 of 2014 and as informed,
these were persons who did not get the
benefit of the interim order passed by the
learned Single Judge as they had not
approached the Court earlier. Their Special
Leave Petition was finally disposed of on
18.07.2014 in the following terms :-

"Applications for impleadment
are allowed.

Leave granted.

Heard Mr. Harish N. Salve,
learned senior counsel for the applicant
and
Mr. Mehrotra, learned counsel
for the State.

The appellants, along with many
others, appeared in U.P. Sub Inspector
(Civil Police) Ranker Examination under
U.P. Civil Police Service Rules, 2008 for
the post of Sub Inspectors. It is not in
dispute
that
in
question
papers
18
questions were set in an erroneous manner.
The
learned
Single
Judge
being
approached by some of the candidates in a
writ petition, directed that the petitioners
who have knocked at the doors of the High
Court shall be granted full marks in respect
of the 18 questions, who have attempted the
said erroneous questions.

The said order was assailed by
some of the candidates before the Division
11 All. Sanjay Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1359
Bench of the High Court, which is
subjudice. Be it stated, an interim order
was passed by the High Court in the
Special Appeal No. 577/2012. Questioning
the correctness of the said interim order,
State of U.P. and its functionaries came
before this Court and on 7.10.2013 in C.A.
No. 9688/2013, this Court vacated the
order of stay and permitted the selected
candidates to go for training and join the
posts.

Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, we are of the convinced
opinion, the controversy should be put to
rest from all spectrums and accordingly we
issue the following directions:-

(a) The posts that have been
filled up by successful candidates, as has
been apprised to us at the Bar, are 3358
and the candidates who have joined in the
said posts and presently working shall not
be disturbed.

(b) The U.P. Police Recruitment
&
Promotion
Board,
Lucknow
shall
scrutinise the papers of all the candidates,
namely, the persons who had approached
the writ court and the candidates who had
not approached the writ court and if they
have attempted and answered the 18
questions, which were wrongly set out, they
will be awarded full marks for said 18
questions.

(c) If a candidate has not
answered any erroneous question, the same
shall be proportionately reduced. To
clarify, the candidate shall only get full
marks for the questions answered.

(d) A fresh select list shall be
drawn up taking into account the aforesaid
marks in respect of 2031 posts which are
available in presenti pertaining to the year
2008.

(e) The aforesaid exercise
shall completed within a period of three
months hence and the successful candidates
shall be duly intimated and subsequent
action shall be taken by the State. By virtue
of our order, any matter pending in the
Writ Court or before the Division Bench
shall be deemed to have been disposed of.

The appeal stands disposed of on
the above terms. There shall be no order as
to costs."

8. As would be evident from a reading
of
the
aforesaid
judgment
dated
18.07.2014, the Supreme Court of India
categorically provided that - the posts that
have
been
filled
up
by
successful
candidates which are 3358 and the
candidates who have joined the said post
and at presently are working shall not be
disturbed. The private opposite parties
herein were part of these 3358 candidates,
therefore, their candidature was not to be
disturbed.

9. The select list in respect to them
(respondents) had already been issued
earlier and the appellants before us did not
challenge the said select list nor sought any
relief
for
themselves
regarding
their
inclusion in the select list on the ground
that they had secured more marks than the
private respondents herein.

10. As regards others, the Supreme
Court of India vide judgment dated
18.07.2014
directed
the
U.P.
Police
Recruitment
and
Promotion
Board,
Lucknow to scrutinize the papers of all the
candidates namely the persons who had
approached
the
writ
court
and
the
candidates who had not approached the
writ court and if they had attempted and
answered the 18 questions, which were
wrongly set out, they would be awarded
full marks for said 18 questions. If a
candidate had not answered any erroneous
question the same shall be proportionally
reduced. It was clarified that the candidate
1360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
shall only get full marks for the questions
answered. Accordingly it directed that a
fresh select list shall be drawn up taking
into account the aforesaid marks in respect
of 2031 posts which are available in the
present pertaining to the year 2008. Any
other matter pending in writ court or before
the division bench was deemed to have
been disposed of by the said judgment.

11. Now all the above directions were
subject to the initial observation that those
3358 candidates, who have been selected
earlier and posted, would not be disturbed.

12. It is not in dispute that the private
respondents herein were selected and
issued letters of training and posted on
16.08.2012. No challenge to their selection,
training or posting was raised by the
appellants before us who were also
candidates in the same selection.

13. The appellants before us were
included in a subsequent select list which
was
issued
in
pursuance
to
the
abovementioned
judgment
dated
18.07.2014, without filing any writ petition
because of the directions issued by the
Supreme Court which extended the benefit
granted by it to all the candidates. But the
fact of the matter is that so far as the marks
obtained by the appellants as claimed in
paragraph 19 of the writ petition and their
alleged placement in the select list vis-a-vis
placement of the private opposite parties in
the earlier select list was never put to
challenge nor was any claim raised that
they having secured higher marks should
be placed in first select list or should be
offered posting, training, etc. with the
private opposite parties in 2012 itself.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants
informed that consequent to the aforesaid
exercise, in pursuance to the judgment
dated 18.07.2014, the names of the
appellants figured in the select list which
was formulated by the opposite parties and
they were offered to be sent for training in
2015 and thereafter they were posted as
Sub Inspector Civil Police in 2016.

15. It is not in dispute that on
08.07.2017 a tentative seniority list of Sub
Inspectors was published wherein all the
appellants were placed below the private
respondents
herein.
Out
of
the
64
appellants before us, who were petitioners
before the writ court, only one that is
appellant no.1 filed objections to the
tentative seniority list. Learned counsel for
the appellants Shri Dhaka very fairly
submitted that the other 63 appellants/
petitioners did not file any objection to the
tentative seniority list.

16. We have already stated that none
of the appellants raised any challenge to the
selection, training and posting of the
private opposite parties in 2012 or
thereafter.
This
is
relevant
because
ultimately the claim for seniority is being
based on the alleged marks secured by the
appellants
and
the
requirement
of
publishing one select list under the Rules,
an aspect which we will consider hereinafter.

17. As regards the objections to the
tentative seniority list, the law is settled as
has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and
another vs. Rameshwar Prasad (Dead)
By Lrs. and others; (1976) 2 SCC 37 and
S.B. Dogra vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh and others; (1992) 4 SCC 455
that one who does not object to a tentative
seniority list cannot raise a challenge to the
final seniority list. Therefore, so far as the
11 All. Sanjay Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1361
claim of appellant nos.2 to 64 is concerned,
the same is barred by the said law.

18. As regards the appellant no.1 is
concerned, no doubt he filed objections to
the tentative seniority list, which were
rejected on 11.12.2017 when the final
seniority list was issued. In the final
seniority list in paragraph 2 rejection of
such objections made to the tentative
seniority list, has been mentioned. By the
same order the final seniority list was
published wherein all the appellants were
placed before the private opposite parties
herein.

19. Moreover, though in paragraph 19 of
the writ petition the appellants have asserted
that they had secured more marks than the
private opposite parties, but they have not
disclosed the basis on which this assertion
has been made, nor is there any documentary
proof on record to establish that the
appellants had secured higher marks than the
private opposite parties. We may in this very
context once again refer to the judgment of
the
Supreme
Court
dated
18.07.2014
according to which the select list already
issued was not to be disturbed and the basis
of seniority is the select list and the order of
placement therein. The appellants have been
appointed consequent to a subsequent select
list being issued only in pursuance to the
directions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide
judgment dated 18.07.2014 which cannot
have any adverse effect on the select list
issued earlier in view of the stipulation
contained in the same judgment, as already
mentioned, therefore, contention that only
one select list should have been prepared is
not open to be asserted nor acceptable purely
in the facts of this case. The assertion that
appellants secured more marks apart from
without being without any basis, is also
irrelevant for the aforesaid reason.

20. The learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition on the ground of
delay and laches because the writ petition
was filed seeking the reliefs as quoted
herein-above which included a challenge to
the seniority list. The writ petition was filed
on 24.07.2020, that is almost two and a half
years after publication of the final seniority
list dated 11.12.2017.

21. The other orders under challenge
were the orders by which private opposite
parties were directed to be sent for training
for the next higher post of Inspector. The
case of the appellants is that they filed the
writ petition only on coming to know about
the aforesaid seniority list based on the said
orders by which the private opposite parties
were sought to be sent for training for the
higher post of Inspector. However in the
writ petition we do not find any explanation
as to from what source and in what manner
the final seniority list dated 11.12.2017,
which was under challenge, was received
or obtained by the appellants/ petitioners.
In the order dated 11.12.2017 paragraph 4
very categorically states that the seniority
list has been uploaded/published on the
official
website
http://uppolice.gov.in,
meaning thereby, the hard copy was issued
thereafter. The same order reflects that a
copy of the hard copy of the seniority list
dated 11.12.2017 was sent to various
officials such as Zonal Additional Police/
Additional Director of Police/ Inspector
General of Police, U.P./ Inspector General
of Police (Establishment) or Inspector
General/ Deputy Inspector General of
Ranges, U.P., etc. The contention of the
appellant no.1 before us is that he did not
come to know about the final seniority list
dated 11.12.2017, however, we do not find
any such assertion in the writ petition that
the
seniority
list
was
not
uploaded/published
on
the
website
1362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aforesaid. What is being stated is that it was
not communicated to the appellants. The
number of persons whose name figures in
the seniority list is more than nine
thousand, therefore, at least in the facts of
this case it was not possible to serve such a
voluminous
seniority
list
to
every
individual. Publication/ uploading on the
website is sufficient compliance on the
principles of natural justice.

22. We may point out, the order of the
Supreme Court dated 18.07.2014 itself
makes it very clear that the selection,
training and posting of the 3358 candidates,
which includes the private respondents
herein, will not be disturbed. Even at the
cost of repetition it needs to be said that
whether or not the select list was published
and though it is difficult to accept that it
was not so published, the fact is undisputed
that the private respondents were posted
and appointed in 2012. If the appellants
herein were of the opinion that they had
secured more marks, then they should have
raised a challenge at that point of time
itself, which was never done.

23. As regards the contention of Shri
Dhaka, learned counsel for the appellants
that the cause of action was a continuous
one as repeated promotion orders to the
post of Inspector are being issued, we are
afraid this is an argument only to be
rejected. Once the final seniority list was
published on 11.04.2017 and prior to it the
private opposite parties were not only
selected but also sent for training and
posted, then the cause of action, if any,
occurred at that relevant time in 2012, if
not, then in 2015 when the appellants
themselves were selected and posted, at
least so far as the challenge, if any, to the
select list, etc. is concerned. So far as
seniority matter is concerned, the seniority
list was issued in 2017 itself, as already
discussed, whereas the writ petition was
filed in the year 2020.

24. Further, once the appellants were
selected in 2015 and sent for training then
at least at that time they could have raised
this challenge. The appellants before us in
fact never filed any writ petition prior to
2020 raising such grievance, therefore, it is
not open for them now to say that they had
secured more marks than the private
respondents so as to claim seniority over
them.

25. Of course the tentative seniority
list was issued for the first time in 2017 but
on merits the claim being raised by the
appellants herein is that they had secured
more marks in the selection than the private
opposite parties, for which the cause of
action did not arise in 2017 but arose firstly
in 2012, if not, then, certainly in 2015,
when the appellants themselves were
selected and posted as Sub Inspector Civil
Police but did not raise any such challenge,
therefore, the delay in this regard is
apparent,
inordinate
and
absolutely
unexplained.

26. At this very stage it needs to be
pointed out that merely because in some of
the decisions relied upon by the appellants'
counsel such as those reported in (2009) 7
Supreme Court Cases 424; and (2022) 12
Supreme Court Cases 579 it was observed a
delay of three to four years in challenging a
seniority list by itself would not defeat such
challenge, it does not mean that no
explanation for the delay is to be offered. It
is neither the intent nor the ratio of the
aforesaid judgments that without any
explanation for delay of three or four years
if a writ petition is filed challenging a
seniority list, then the writ court is required
11 All. Sanjay Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1363
to
condone
or
ignore
the
delay
mechanically. The fact that there is a delay
which may be inordinate or not inordinate
is one thing and the fact that there has to be
an explanation to be offered is another
thing.

27. In this very context we point out
that the aforesaid decisions itself and
certain other decisions such as the one
reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394; Banda
Development Authority, Banda vs. Moti
Lal Agarwal and others provide that if for
the same cause if first a suit is to be filed
before the civil court then a writ petition
would not be entertained beyond the
limitation prescribed for filing of such a
suit. In the case at hand, as the dispute
pertained to seniority, that is, a service
dispute, at least in the State of Uttar
Pradesh the jurisdiction of the civil courts
was substituted by the jurisdiction of a
specially constituted tribunal under the U.P.
Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 under
which for raising any such dispute as has
been raised herein, the limitation as
prescribed is one year and the Limitation
Act, 1963 is applicable as it is applicable to
a suit, meaning thereby, there is no
provision for condonation of delay in filing
a reference/ claim before the Tribunal.
What it means is that if a claim petition was
to be filed, which should have been filed
instead of straightaway filing a writ petition
in view of a catena of decisions in this
regard such as State of U.P. and another vs.
Labh Chand; AIR 1994 SC 754 where it
has been held that where for adjudication of
service disputes a special tribunal has been
constituted, then first and foremost the said
alternative statutory remedy should be
available, any such claim or reference filed
by the appellant before the Tribunal would
be barred by limitation and apparently so,
unless of course they are able to show that
the final seniority list was never published.
In this regard we have already stated that
the pleadings in the writ petition are
absolutely silent with regard to the
uploading or non-uploading of the final
seniority list on the portal referred hereinabove. Mere assertion that the list was not
communicated was not sufficient. A
specific and categorical assertion should
have been made in this regard which is
absent. In the absence of such pleading
there is no explanation whatsoever for the
delay in filing the writ petition.

28. We notice that in the relief clause
of the writ petition vires of Rule 22 of the
Rules, 2015 which provides the criteria for
determining seniority of members of the
service including Sub Inspector Civil
Police, was under challenge, but, having
gone through the writ petition and the
grounds therein, we do not find any such
ground which could form the basis for a
challenge to the said vires nor for declaring
it as ultra vires. Therefore, the said relief
also does not satisfy us in view of the
decision reported in (2023) 11 SCC 432;
Haji Abdul Gani Khan and another vs.
Union of India and others. Para 20 of which
reads as under:

" 20. There cannot be any doubt
that when a party wants to challenge the
constitutional validity of a statute, he must
plead in detail the grounds on which the
validity of the statute is sought to be
challenged. In absence of the specific
pleadings to that effect, Court cannot go
into the issue of the validity of statutory
provisions.
The
Constitutional
Courts
cannot interfere with the law made by the
Legislature
unless
it
is
specifically
challenged
by
incorporating
specific
grounds of challenge in the pleadings. The
reason
is
that
there
is
always
a
1364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
presumption of the constitutionality of
laws. The burden is always on the person
alleging unconstitutionality to prove it. For
that purpose, the challenge has to be
specifically pleaded by setting out the
specific grounds on which the challenge is
made. A Constitutional Court cannot
casually interfere with legislation made by
a competent Legislature only by drawing
an inference from the pleadings that the
challenge to the validity is implicit. The
State gets a proper opportunity to defend
the legislation only if the State is made
aware of the grounds on which the
legislation is sought to be challenged."

29. In fact, learned counsel for the
appellants did not even address us on the
vires of Rule 22 of the Rules, 2015,
therefore, it appears that he did not want to
press it.

30. For all the reasons, as discussed
herein-above, so far as appellant nos.2 to
64 are concerned, they did not file any
objection to the tentative seniority list dated
08.07.2017, therefore, their claim as raised
in the writ petition is clearly barred by the
law as declared by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad
(Dead) By Lrs. and others (supra) and S.B.
Dogra (supra). So far as appellant no.1 is
concerned, though he filed objections but
did not approach the court within a
reasonable time and in any case, in view of
the grounds for claiming seniority as that is
also highly belated and it is only in 2020
that the relief was claimed vide relief no.C,
as already discussed herein-above, we are
of the opinion that the learned Single Judge
did not commit any error in dismissing the
writ petition on the ground of delay and
laches,
purely
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of this case. The reasons
which we have given are additional reasons
in support of the conclusion arrived at by
the learned writ court.

31. For all the above reasons we are
not inclined to interfere with the impugned
judgment dated 27.07.2021.