IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5598 OF 2007

SURESH CHANDRA .......APPELLANT(S)  

Versus

STATE OF UTTRANCHAL & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4773 OF 2008

O R D E R

This  order will  dispose  of  Civil  Appeal  No.5598/2007 filed by one Suresh  

Chandra  and  also  an  Civil  Appeal  no.4773/2008  filed  by  respondent  8  Ravindra  

Prasad.   

2. This is an  inter se dispute between these two officers who were working as  

engineers in the State of Uttar Pradesh.  While the appellant Suresh Chandra was a  

directly  recruited  Assistant  Engineer  having  been appointed  on 2.2.1999,  the  other  

person namely Ravindra Prasad was, however, appointed as a Junior Engineer in the  

year 1983 on adhoc basis and was ultimately regularised in the year 1989 as Junior  

Engineer.  Thereafter, he was promoted on 25.5.1995. However, the question is whether  

this was an adhoc promotion or a substantive promotion.  While Shri Ravindra Prasad  

claims this to be a regular promotion since it was granted after his selection by the  

Departmental Promotion Committee, the appellant  Suresh  Chandra,  however, claims  

that this  was an  

.......2.

- 2 -

adhoc promotion.  Both these officers were allocated to the State of Uttranchal as it  

then was (now State of Uttrakhand).  While Shri Suresh Chandra was allocated in his  

capacity as Assistant Engineer, however, Ravindra Prasad was allocated in his capacity  

as Junior Engineer because till then he continued to be in the seniority list of Junior  

Engineers and was not included in the cadre of Assistant Engineer.  Be that as it may.   

3. Thereafter, a question came as to in what capacity Ravindra Prasad can be  

accommodated in the State of Uttranchal.  There was lot of correspondence between  

the newly created State of Uttranchal and Uttar Pradesh and as a result the State of  

Uttar Pradesh then took up the matter, sent it to the U.P. Public Service Commission  

which again went into the exercise of examining the records of Ravindra Prasad and  

also interviewed him and ultimately wrote to the State of Uttranchal that he was liable  

to be promoted and that he was properly promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer  

from his post of Junior Engineer.  This recommendation of the U.P. Public Service  

Commission was also granted approval by the Hon'ble Governor of Uttar Pradesh.  It  

is on this basis that the State of Uttranchal in the year 2006 directed Ravindra Prasad  

to grant the seniority in the post of Assistant Engineer  from  25.5.1995.   This  was  

challenged  by  Suresh  

......3.

- 3 -

Chandra.  While in another petition, Ravindra Prasad had also challenged exclusion of  

his name from the list of Assistant Engineers.  Both these petitions came to be decided  

along with some other petitions by the High Court and the High Court dismissed the  

petition  filed  by  Suresh  Chandra  and thereby  accepted the  position  that  Ravindra  

Prasad had to be held senior to Suresh Chandra he having been promoted in the year  

1995 and his promotion having been regularised and upheld by State of Uttar Pradesh  

as well as the State of Uttranchal.   While Shri Suresh Chandra has challenged this  

order on various grounds,  even Shri  Ravindra Prasad has  challenged the order on  

account of an observation made in the said judgment to the effect that Shri Ravindra  

Prasad was given an adhoc promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer.   

4. Shri Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel urged before us that the very basis  

of the High Court order was incorrect inasmuch as the High Court went on to apply  

the  rules  called  Uttranchal  (On  posts  within  the  purview  of  the  Public  Service  

Commission) Adhoc Appointments Regularisation Rules, 2002.  Indeed when we see  

paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment it is found that those rules are relied upon by  

the High Court.  We have cursorily gone through those rules and are of prima facie  

opinion that those rules may not apply for the simple reason that the rules did not  

apply to promotees.   

........4.

- 4 -  

5. Further,  we are not at all  satisfied  with the judgment which is  extremely  

sketchy and skeleton like without answering number of issues which could be raised.  

One  of  the  issues  could  be  as  to  whether  Uttar  Pradesh  Government  and  more  

particularly  the U.P. Public  Service Commission could have had the jurisdiction to  

decide upon the nature of promotion awarded to Shri Ravindra Prasad particularly  

after the State was divided and after the State of Uttar Pradesh was divested of its  

control over the employees.  There are number of other issues arising and we find that  

the judgment is totally silent about various facts as also the rules including the 1954  

Regulations  as  amended  by  13th amendment  and  16th amendment.   Therefore,  the  

impugned judgment appears to be wanting in all the necessary details and is liable to  

be set aside.  We would expect the High Court to go into all the questions raised by the  

parties in the light of the applicable rules and give a clear cut finding as regards (i) the  

nature of promotion granted to Shri Ravindra Prasad, (ii) the legality or propriety of  

the  exercise  taken  by  the  U.P.  Public  Service  Commission  as  also  the  positions  

(contradictory) taken by the State of Uttranchal in the matter.  We, therefore, request  

the High Court to dispose of the matter within six months of the writ reaching that  

Court.   Our no  expression should  be understood as  expressing any opinion on the  

merits of the matter.

........5.

- 5 -

6. With this, the appeals are disposed of. No order as to costs.

  ...........................J.    ( V.S. SIRPURKAR )

New Delhi;    ...........................J. May 25, 2009.              ( R.M. LODHA )