In Brief
Junior Engineers from three different engineering streams (Agriculture, Mechanical, Civil) were selected in a single 1998–1999 recruitment for the Uttar Pradesh Department of Minor Irrigation. Although it was one selection, the commission sent separate merit lists for each stream on different dates. The appointing authority prepared the final seniority list by simply placing these three lists one after another in the order they were received, rather than preparing a combined merit list of all candidates. The appellants challenged this, arguing it violated the Seniority Rules. The Supreme Court held that where one selection results in multiple separate lists, a combined seniority list based on inter se merit must be prepared. The Court rejected the delay argument (as the false recital in the 2006 list concealed the real method of preparation) and ruled that the seniority list must be quashed and redone according to statutory rules to protect the fundamental right to be considered for promotion.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.