# Surendra Vikram Singh v. State

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1420
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-12-05
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kant, S.V. Singh Rathore
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-vikram-singh-v-state-42069
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

U.P. Higher Judicial Services Rule 1975placement
in
seniority-petitioner's
batchmates recommended for officiating
promotion-ignoring petitioner due to
adverse entry 1994-95 on 27.03.2000but approved subsequent on 18.08.2001Regular promotion on 13.04.2005 givenin tentative seniority list published on
03.03.2011-petitioner placed at serial
no. 455-but in revised list got placed at
Serial no. 678-un-communicated adverse
entry can not be ground for super
seating-once placed properly-hardly any
occasion to disturb such placementdirection issued accordingly.

Held: Para 27

As
per
the
own
criteria/principles
determined by the Seniority Committee,
this was a case which will fall in the third
category
viz.
where
the
officiating
promotion was denied because of the
presence of the adverse entry, which
entry was not to be taken into account
and
consequently
the
officiating
promotion was given. The Seniority
3 All] Surendra Vikram Singh V. State of U.P.
1421
Committee in its criteria has observed
that for such officers, the seniority
position would be restored back. That
being so, we do not find any reason as to
why the petitioner should be denied his
seniority to which he was entitled
otherwise.
Case law discussed:
(2008) 8 SCC 725; (1999) 1 SCC 241

## Text

1420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
those who had passed B.Ed./ L.T., were to
be given the preference while stating that
the
work
used
was
Adhimanyata
(preference). That clause has been
removed and the terms used in Clause
No.4, are Prathama Variyata, which will
mean 'first priority' or 'precedence'. The
provisions contained in this Clause, when
read
with
the
clarification
dated
21.11.2005, clearly lead to the inference
that the Instructors/ Supervisors, who
have worked in the non-formal education
Scheme ought to be preferred en bloc with
priority over the others, if such persons
are available."

9. Thus, priority or precedence
would not mean a reservation for local
candidates nor would it mean drawing of
a separate merit list for them. It is only on
the comparative assessment on merit of
local candidates vis-a-vis outsiders that
the local candidates if otherwise found
eligible but left behind with narrow
margin may get priority and sympathetic
consideration in comparison with the
outsiders. But in the instant case, the
selected candidates secured 50 marks and
above whereas the petitioners have
obtained the marks only within the range
of 30. Thus, in that case, they would not
be entitled to get any priority over the
outsiders.

10. Thus, we may hold that 'priority',
in the present context would mean
precedence of the local candidates who
are not left behind with a wide margin in
the merit, but are positioned at a
reasonable
distance,
in
comparative
assessment vis-a-vis the outsiders.

11. Thus, the writ petitions are
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KANT,J.
THE HON'BLE S.V. SINGH RATHORE,J.

Service Bench No. - 1468 of 2011

Surendra Vikram Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State
of
U.P.Through
Prin.
Secy.
Appointment Deptt. Lko. and other

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashwani Kumar
Sri Adarsh Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Manish Kumar

U.P. Higher Judicial Services Rule 1975placement
in
seniority-petitioner's
batchmates recommended for officiating
promotion-ignoring petitioner due to
adverse entry 1994-95 on 27.03.2000but approved subsequent on 18.08.2001Regular promotion on 13.04.2005 givenin tentative seniority list published on
03.03.2011-petitioner placed at serial
no. 455-but in revised list got placed at
Serial no. 678-un-communicated adverse
entry can not be ground for super
seating-once placed properly-hardly any
occasion to disturb such placementdirection issued accordingly.

Held: Para 27

As
per
the
own
criteria/principles
determined by the Seniority Committee,
this was a case which will fall in the third
category
viz.
where
the
officiating
promotion was denied because of the
presence of the adverse entry, which
entry was not to be taken into account
and
consequently
the
officiating
promotion was given. The Seniority
3 All] Surendra Vikram Singh V. State of U.P.
1421
Committee in its criteria has observed
that for such officers, the seniority
position would be restored back. That
being so, we do not find any reason as to
why the petitioner should be denied his
seniority to which he was entitled
otherwise.
Case law discussed:
(2008) 8 SCC 725; (1999) 1 SCC 241

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kant,J.)

1. Heard Sri S.K.Kalia, learned
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Adarsh
Saxena, counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the
High Court and learned standing counsel
appearing for the State.

2. The petitioner, who was initially
appointed as Munsif on 5.11.1979,
belongs to 1977 batch of U.P.Nyayik
Sewa (hereinafter referred to as UPNS),
was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior
Division) in the year 1996. During the
year 1994-95, he was communicated an
adverse entry when he was posted as Civil
Judge (Senior Division) at Moradabad. He
made a representation against the said
adverse entry but the same was rejected
on 14.3.1997, aggrieved by which he
preferred a writ petition bearing no.
41334 of 1997, which was disposed of on
6.12.2000 with a direction to the
respondents to decide the representation
of the petitioner keeping in view the
observations of the Division Bench and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad versus Sarnam Singh and
another, reported in 2000(2) SCC 339.

3. In the meantime, when the
aforesaid writ petition was pending, the
batch mates of the petitioner were
considered
for
officiating
promotion
under Rule 22(3) of the U.P.Higher
Judicial Services Rules, 1975 (hereinafter
referred to as the UPHJS Rules), but the
petitioner was not recommended for
promotion by the Selection Committee
because of the aforesaid adverse entry. He
was
again
not
recommended
for
promotion by the Selection Committee on
27.3.2000 because of the said adverse
entry. He was also having 'fair' entries for
four successive years.

4. The writ petition preferred by the
petitioner, as referred to above, was
decided on 6.12.2000 and thereafter the
Administrative Committee of the High
Court resolved on 27.4.2001 that the
remarks of the Inspecting Judge for the
year 1994-95 be not taken into account
while considering his promotion. The
selection committee thereafter approved
the petitioner for officiating promotion
vide resolution dated 18.8.2001 and he
was
promoted
vide
High
Court's
notification dated 30.10.2001 under the
provisions of Rule 22(3) of the UPHJS
Rules.

5. After the petitioner was given
officiating
promotion
in
U.P.Higher
Judicial Service, he was considered for
regular promotion and was given such
promotion on 13.4.2005. The notification
in this regard was issued on 17.5.2005. In
this Government notification promoting
the petitioner under Rule 22(1) of the
UPHJS Rules alongwith his batch mates,
he was rightly placed as per his seniority
position.

6. It was thereafter on 3.3.2011 that
the first tentative seniority list of the
officers of UPHJS cadre was published.
In this list, the petitioner was again rightly
placed at serial no. 455 i.e. in between
1422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
Mr. Rakesh Kumar at serial no. 454 and
Mr. Gyan Chandra at serial no. 456.
Subsequently,
on
18.5.2011,
revised
tentative seniority list was published, in
which the petitioner was placed at serial
no. 678 whereas Mr. Rakesh Kumar was
placed at serial no. 451 and Mr. Gyan
Chandra
at
serial
no.
452.
This
necessitated a representation by the
petitioner against the revised tentative
seniority list, which was made on
30.5.2011, wherein he requested that his
seniority be restored at due place i.e.
above Mr. Gyan Chandra and below Mr.
Rakesh Kumar.

7. Besides the petitioner, several
other
officers
who
were
similarly
circumstanced and were pushed down in
the revised tentative seniority list, also
represented their cases and in the final
seniority list, they were given their due
places. The petitioner was, however,
denied the said relief.

8. Later on, final seniority list was
published
alongwith
the
seniority
committee report, from where it revealed
that the petitioner's representation has not
been accepted and his place in the
seniority list remains unchanged.

9. The placement so made in the
seniority list of UP HJS officers has given
a cause of action to the petitioner to
approach this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

10. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the principle
applied in the case of the petitioner for
denying him the benefit of seniority with
effect from the year 1999 i.e. when the
persons junior to him belonging to his
batch were given seniority, is not based
on any rational and fair criteria; rather this
is against the rules which govern the
seniority.

11. His further submission is that by
no stretch of imagination, merely because
there were four successive 'fair' entries
after the adverse entry for the assessment
year
1994-95,
which
were
never
communicated to the petitioner, he could
have been pushed down in the seniority
list on the ground that he was superseded
in officiating promotion, not because of
the adverse entry of 1994-95 alone but
looking to the entire record which
included four fair entries awarded to him
successively.

12. In support of his above
submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon Dev Dutt versus
Union of India and others (2008) 8 SCC
725, U.P.Jal Nigam versus S.C.Atri and
another (1999) 1 SCC 241 and R.K.Singh
versus State of U.P. & others 1991 Supp.
(2) SCC 126.

13. Sri Manish Kumar, appearing for
the High Court has vehemently urged that
the petitioner was since superseded in
officiating promotion and his service
record was found bad by the Full Court
where he was found not fit for promotion,
he cannot claim restoration of his
seniority alongwith his batch mates of
1997 and in other words, from the year
1999.

14. Sri Manish Kumar has also
drawn our attention to the criteria fixed by
the Seniority Committee for awarding
seniority to the UPHJS officers, who were
first given ad hoc officiating promotion
and were subsequently given regular
promotion, wherein such officers were
3 All] Surendra Vikram Singh V. State of U.P.
1423
allowed
the
benefit
of
officiating
promotion and were given seniority from
the date of their officiation.

15. Seniority Committee laid down
the criteria for determining the seniority
of those officers, who were given ad hoc
promotion and were promoted on regular
basis
while
working
on
officiating
promotion and also of those officers who
could not be given officiating promotion
because of the adverse entries, but were
subsequently promoted when adverse part
of their service record was expunged.

16. In fact, the following criteria
was adopted by the Seniority Committee
for determining seniority of three sets of
officers, after observing that there are
certain
principles
on
matters
not
specifically covered by Rule 26 of 1975
Rules; viz.

" (A) Under Rule 26 (before
15.3.1996), for D.Rs., the reckoning point
of seniority is the date of joining but a few
days difference in the matter of joining of
D.Rs., appointed by same order, amongst
themselves, would not disturb their
position inter se. This principle was
followed by earlier Seniority Committee
which
has
attained
finality.
Same
principle would be followed this time
also. Therefore, amongst D.Rs., we
maintain their inter se position as per
their
merit
position
and
order
of
appointment. A few days difference, either
way n the matter of joining would make
no difference.

(B) Similarly in the matter of
promotee Officers also, all appointed on
substantive vacancies by a common
appointment order, in case of minor
variation in d ate of continuous officiation
of such Officers, on account of difference
in joining, their inter se seniority has also
not been touched and is in tact as it was
in feeder cadre, i.e., in order of their
appointment. This was the principle
followed while preparing earlier seniority
list dated 6.5.1992.

(C) The earlier seniority committee
headed by Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J. (as His
Lordship then was) in regard to issue-3
took a decision that D.Rs., who could not
join on account of interim orders will be
entitled for seniority from the date of
passing restraining order. In respect to
Issue-3 also relating to D.Rs of 1984
recruitment,
the
committee
decided,
where appointments are delayed due to
fault on the part of Government, no
benefit would be given but where the
appointments were delayed due to orders
of Court, they may be given benefit of
decision taken in issue but confined to the
date the person higher in merit was
appointed.

(D) In our second TR having taken
the decision that continuous officiation
upto the date when an Officer was found
unfit for promotion on substantive basis
would not be given any consideration for
seniority,
we
received
some
representations from affected Officers
amongst 58 total representations we have
received. We find from the analysis of
aforesaid objections and other record that
there are three types Officers:

(i) First, those, who were initially
approved for officiating appointment and
given such appointment, thereafter in
their turn approved for substantive
appointment and given such appointment.
There is no difficulty in respect to such
Officers, if they are governed by pre-
1424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
amended Rule 26 of 1975 Rules to reckon
their seniority from the date of the
continuous officiation and the vacancy
available in their quota, whichever is
later.

(ii) Second, the Officers approved for
officating
appointment,
given
such
appointment, but in their turn once or
more
disapproved
for
substantive
appointment under Rules 22(2) but
continued to officiate and later on
approved for substantive appointment.
These Officers have demanded that their
seniority should remain unaffected and
even if the members of UPNS junior to
them have superseded at the time of
substantive appointment, but ultimate
approval shall restore seniority and they
would not be affected in any manner.

(iii)Third,
those
approved
for
officiating/ad hoc promotion but could
not be so promoted for any reason, may
be on account of some inquiry etc.,
rejected for promotion on ad hoc basis
and ultimately given only substantive
appointment when the above inquiry
resulted in exoneration or the other
reason disappeared, like expunction of
adverse entry etc.

(E) So far as the Officers in first
category is concerned, as already noticed,
there is no difficulty. So far as second
category Officers are concerned, we find
the proposition difficult to accept that
they can be allowed to reckon their
seniority from the date of continuous
officiation. It is true that under Rule 26,
the reckoning point of seniority for
promotees is the date of continuous
officiation and the date of availability of
vacancies within their quota, but when
they are found unfit for promotion on
substantive basis in their turn and juniors
are
promoted
on
substantive
basis
superseding them, the vacancies are
provided earlier in pointy of time to the
juniors
approved
for
substantive
appointment when senior is rejected.
Therefore, the later approval would not
result
in
automatic
restoration
of
seniority from the date of association so
as to score a march over juniors who had
already superseded the senior Officer for
substantive appointment. Any other view
would amount to treating unequals as
equal. Rule nowhere provides that an
Officer
superseded
for
substantive
appointment by his juniors can restore his
seniority due to later approval. To adjust
equity amongst all the Officers so as not
to nullify effect of supercession in
substantive appointment, officiation of
superseded Officers would count from one
day later than the last rejection for
promotion and immediately preceding
approval for promotion on substantive
basis.

(F) There may be some Officers who
were found unfit on account of some
punishment or adverse entry etc. which
subsequently disappeared, may be on
account of some judicial order or in
appeal
or
representation
on
the
administrative side resulting in vanishing
the very basis on account whereof the
incumbent was superseded. IN such cases,
as we have already decided earlier,
following the decision on similar aspect
by earlier committee also such Officers, if
approved in following selection, would
restore their position back over their
juniors.

(G) In this regard, we have followed
the
decision
of
earlier
Seniority
Committee headed by Hon'ble S.D.
3 All] Surendra Vikram Singh V. State of U.P.
1425
Agarwal, J. in finalizing 1992 S.L. (see
para 83(e) of this report where it said that
the
Officers
who
were
not
given
promotion under Rule 22(3) or 22(4) due
to any adverse entry or enquiry pending
against them, which has subsequently
been wiped out, seniority of such officers
shall be counted from the date next junior
member of UPNS or JOS, as the case may
be, of their batch who were promoted to
the
service
prior
to
them
started
officiation). This principle was also
followed by the later Seniority Committee
headed by Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J. (as his
Lordship then was) and was never
disputed earlier or before us.

(H) Now comes third category. The
Officers considered in their turn for
officiating appointment or subordinative
appointment but the consideration was
deferred, may be for non completion of
record of A.C.R. Or otherwise, vacancies
kept reserved and subsequently they were
approved and promoted. In such cases,
these officers shall be assigned seniority
from the date their next junior I UPNS
has been assigned seniority inasmuch
such
Officers
were
neither
ever
superseded
nor
denied
officiating
appointment nor have been otherwise
allowed to suffer. The Court kept the
vacancy reserved and, therefore, in the
matter of seniority also they cannot be
allowed to suffer."

17. So far as the petitioner is
concerned,
the
Seniority
Committee
observed as under:

227. Sri Surendra Vikram Singh, a
quite
senior
in
UPNS
made
representation for not providing him
seniority at his due place alongwith his
juniors in UPNS. In the tentative seniority
list circulated with our Second TR he has
been placed at Sl. No. 678. In his
representation he has said that he belongs
to 1977 batch of UPNS appointed on
05.11.1979 and promoted as Civil Judge
(Senior Division) on 20.02.1990. From
his report we find that he was awarded an
adverse entry in 1994-95 to the following
effect:

"Disposal adequate being 202 per
cent. The officer enjoyed a stinkingly bad
reputation as revealed in my surprise
inspection made incognito on 18th of
April, 1995. the remarks of the District
Judge in the annual confidential report
for the year 1994-95 affirmed.

Assessment of judicial performance
adjudged 'very poor' on the basis of my
inspection note for the year 1994-95.

Integrity doubtful."

228. His integrity was also assessed
as doubtful. His representation against
the aforesaid remark was also rejected on
14.03.1997. He filed Writ Petition No.
41334 of 1997 seeking a writ of certiorari
for quashing the aforesaid adverse
remark. Vide judgment dated 06.12.2000
this Court partly allowed his writ petition
required for reconsideration of his
representation
against
the
aforesaid
adverse entry in the light of decision of
the Apex Court in High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad Vs. Sarnam
singh and another, 2000(2) SCC 339.
Direction issued by this Court reads as
under:

"In view of what has been stated
above, the writ petition succeeds partly
and is allowed in part. The respondents
are directed to decide the representation
1426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
of the petitioner keeping in view the
observations of the Hon'ble Division
Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sarnam Singh case and dispose if of
afresh.

The parties will bear their own
costs."

229. In the meantime, the selection
committee considered him for promotion
in
UPHJS
and
vide
report
dated
18.05.1998 solely on the basis of adverse
entry awarded for 1994-95 did not
recommend him and this report was
accepted by Full Court on 11.07.1998.
Again he was considered by selection
committee
and
vide
report
dated
27.03.2000 it did not recommend Sri
Surendra Vikram Singh for promotion
referring not only adverse entry of 199495 but also referring to his performance
in the subsequent four years as is evident
from the following:

"In the year 1994-95 he was rated to
be a very poor officer and his integrity
has been assessed as doubtful. He made
two representations but th same were
rejected on 14.03.1997 and 16.08.1997
respectively. Challenging the entry for the
year 1994-95 he has filed Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.41334/1998 whch is pending
but there is no interim order staying the
operation of the adverse entry. However,
in the successive four years he was
assessed to be merely a fair officer.
Therefore he is not recommended for
promotion."

230. This report was also accepted
by Full Court vide resolution dated
09.04.2000 and Surendra Vikram Singh
was not recommended for promotion.
After the decision of Court vide judgment
dated 06.12.2000 the representation of
Surendra Vikram Singh was considered
by Administrative Committee in its
meeting dated 27.04.2001 and it resolved
as under:

"Resolved that the remarks made by
the inspecting judge against the officer for
the year 1994-95 be not taken into
account."

231. Thereafter, the Full Court
approved
him
for
promotion
vide
resolution dated 18.8.2001. It is evident
that, his supercession vide Full Court
resolution dated 9.4.2000 was not solely
on account of adverse entry of 1994-95
but also in the light of his performance
adjudged as merely a "fair officer" in the
successive four years. Therefore, our
decision that if the sole basis disappear,
the incumbent shall be restored to his
position would not apply to the case of
Surendra Vikram Singh. We are also
informed that while considering the
Officers for promotion in HJS,m mainly
preceding five year entries used to be
considered by the Court and, therefore,
the subsequent entries being available in
respect to officer concerned which are
considered when he is recommended for
promotion in later year would not entitle
him for restoration of his position. It will
apply only when he is superseded on the
basis of something which ultimately
disappeared but if there is anything more
then the aforesaid logic will not apply."

18. A perusal of the criteria adopted
by
the
Seniority
Committee
for
determining the seniority of the petitioner
shows that the reason for not giving him
the seniority, which he was claiming, is
that though the adverse entry of the year
1994-95 was not taken into account while
3 All] Surendra Vikram Singh V. State of U.P.
1427
making his promotion on officiating basis,
but he was superseded not because of the
said adverse entry alone but also because
of the four 'fair' entries awarded to him in
four successive years.

19. Needless to mention that
seniority is governed by Rule 26 of the
UPHJS Rules, which reads as under:

"26. Seniority.- (1) Seniority of the
officers appointed in the service shall be
determined in accordance with the order
of appointment in the Service under subrules (1) and (2) of Rule 22 of these Rules.

(2) Seniority of members of the
service who have been confirmed in the
service prior to the commencement of
these rules shall be as has been
determined
by
the
order
of
the
Government as amended from time to
time."

20. The appointment is dealt with
under Rule 22 of the aforesaid Rules.

21. The Seniority Committee has
kept the petitioner's case in third category
but has refused seniority for the aforesaid
reason. Here, it is worthwhile to consider
the plea of the petitioner that firstly, the
successive four fair entries after adverse
entry for the year 1994-95 could not be
treated as adverse nor were they adverse;
secondly, had these entries been taken as
adverse, they ought to have been
communicated to the petitioner, which
was never done; thirdly, any entry which
had not been communicated to the
petitioner, could not be considered as
adverse
nor
could
be
taken
into
consideration while making promotion,
and lastly, when the petitioner was given
officiating promotion on 30.10.2001 after
the directive issued by the High Court in
the writ petition preferred by him, these
four 'fair' entries were on record and in
the presence of these four 'fair' entries he
was given officiating promotion simply
ignoring the adverse entry of 1994-95.
Submission is that these four fair entries
were neither taken to be adverse nor
against the petitioner for the purposes of
officiating
promotion;
rather,
after
expunction of the adverse entry of 199495, the Selection Committee did not find
anything adverse so as to deny the
petitioner the officiating promotion and
for that reason he was given officiating
promotion.

22. Thus, if the petitioner was given
officiating promotion on the basis of
existing material including the four
successive 'fair' entries, it cannot be said
that he would not be entitled to restoration
of his seniority merely because at the time
of officiating promotion, there were four
'fair' entires as observed above. At the
time of promotion, the entire record,
which is relevant for the purpose, remains
under scrutiny and if the selection
committee finds that there is anything
adverse on record, may be adverse entry
or any restraint order or any such factor
which prohibits such promotion to an
officer, the selection committee would not
make his promotion, but on consideration
of entire record if promotion is made, then
it would not be open later on to suggest
that the promotion has been made but the
adverse material still is to be taken into
consideration
while
determining
his
seniority.

23. Admittedly, the four fair entries
were
never
communicated
to
the
petitioner; therefore, he could not get a
chance to make any representation against
1428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
them. He was given officiating promotion
after ignoring the adverse entry for the
year 1994-95 but in the presence of four
'fair' entries awarded to him in the
successive four years.

24. The observation of the Seniority
Committee
that
the
petitioner
was
superseded in officiating promotion not
only because of the adverse entry of
1994-95 but also because of the four
successive fair entries, is not borne out
from record for the reason that when the
said adverse entry was ignored, he was
given
officiating
promotion
in
the
presence of same very four 'fair' entries.
Thus, the 'fair' entries were not taken as a
bar or obstacle for giving promotion to
the petitioner in UPHJS cadre on
officiating basis.

25. It is significant to note that when
the petitioner was promoted on regular
basis on 13.4.2005, he was placed rightly
as per his seniority position and also in
the first tentative seniority list, he was
given the correct position, but in the
second tentative seniority list, his position
was changed and he was pushed down
and despite representations made he was
not given due place in the final seniority
list also which was published later on.

26. Grant of officiating promotion
immediately after the expunction of the
adverse entry of 1994-95 in the presence
of four 'fair' entries itself reveals that the
officiating promotion of the petitioner
was earlier denied only because of the
adverse entry and not for 'fair' entries.

27. Once at the time of regular
promotion, the petitioner was placed at
the proper place in the seniority list, there
was hardly any occasion to disturb his
seniority at the time of issuing second
tentative seniority list and that too on a
ground which was non-existent..

28.

As
per
the
own
criteria/principles
determined
by
the
Seniority Committee, this was a case
which will fall in the third category viz.
where the officiating promotion was
denied because of the presence of the
adverse entry, which entry was not to be
taken into account and consequently the
officiating promotion was given. The
Seniority Committee in its criteria has
observed that for such officers, the
seniority position would be restored back.
That being so, we do not find any reason
as to why the petitioner should be denied
his seniority to which he was entitled
otherwise.

29. For the reasons aforesaid, we
allow the writ petition and direct that the
petitioner shall be given his original
seniority and shall be placed in between
Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr. Gyan
Chandra, who have been placed at serial
nos. 451 and 452 in the final seniority list
of UPHJS officers cadre. Let the seniority
list
dated
18.5.2011
be
corrected
accordingly.
---------
3 All] Pankaj Pandey V. S.B.I. Central Recruitment and Promotion Deptt and another
1429
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.R. ALAM, C.J.
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 2319 of 2011

Pankaj Pandey
...Petitioner-Appellant
Versus
S.B.I.
Central
Recruitment
and
Promotion Deptt and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri N.K. Pandey,
Sri H.L. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Satish Chaturvedi

Constitution
of
India
Article
226Cancellation
of
appointment
letterappellant was finally selected on post of
clerk-cum-cashier-appointing
authority
considering
decleration
column
of
application regarding pendency of Trails
of cases under Section 323, 504, 506,
498-A, and 3⁄4 D.P. Act-decided to
withdraw the offer letter-held-propersole domain of appointing authority-can
not be interfered by Court-selected
candidate-no feasible right to claim
appointment-Single
Judge
rightly
declined to interfere.

Held: Para 11

Otherwise also, it is within the domain of
the Appointing Authority/employer to
verify, before issuing the letter of
appointment,
the
antecedents
of
a
person to whom it is going to offer letter
of appointment. Therefore, in the facts of
the case, even if the appellant was
selected, since the respondents have
decided not to offer him appointment
because of his involvement in criminal
cases, we have no reason to differ with
the view taken by the learned Single
Judge. No other point has been urged
before us.
Case law discussed:
(1996) 11 SCC 605; (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 734;
2011 (4) ESC 634; 2007 (5) ADJ 280

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.R. Alam, C.J. )

1. This intra-court appeal arises
from the judgment and order of the
learned
Single
Judge
dated
2nd
November, 2011 rendered in Civil Misc.
Writ
Petition
No.62473
of
2011,
dismissing the appellant's writ petition.

2. We have heard learned counsel
for the appellant and the learned counsel
for the respondents.

3. The short facts giving rise to the
present appeal, briefly stated, are that the
State Bank of India advertised few
vacancies
of
Clerk-cum-Cashier
for
selection and appointment. Pursuant to the
said advertisement, the appellant also
applied for the said post and appeared in
the written examination and was declared
successful hence called for interview,
which was to be held on 7th May, 2010.
However, in the declaration form, he
disclosed about the pendency of three
criminal cases against him, i.e. (1) Case
No......... of 2000 under Sections 323, 504
& 506 IPC, (2) Case No........ of 2007
under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 3 of the D.P. Act, and (3)
Case No.........of 2008 under Sections 323,
504 & 506 IPC. The respondent Bank,
therefore,
keeping
in
view
his
involvement in the aforesaid criminal
cases involving moral turpitude, decided
not to appoint him and, therefore, vide
letter dated 23.09.2011, the offer made to
appoint him was withdrawn/cancelled.
The aggrieved appellant, therefore, filed