HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 10598 of 2025 Court No. - 8
HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Uttam Kumar learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 6. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite parties 7 to 19 stands dispensed with.
2. Petition has been filed challenging seniority list dated 8th September, 2006 and 26th October, 2020. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to determine seniority of petitioners as per provisions of Rule 5 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules 1991 and for fixation of petitioner's seniority accordingly and to consider the cases for promotion to the post of Assistant Development Officer (Industry, Service and Business) from 6th November, 2018 i.e. the date when opposite parties 7 to 19 were granted promotion has also been sought.
3. Mr. Uttam Kumar learned State Counsel at the very outset has raised a preliminary objection regarding entertainability of this petition in view of the fact that petitioners are seeking to unsettle seniority which stands settled since 2006. It is further submitted that no cogent explanation has been given by petitioners for preferring this petition after 19 years of finalization of seniority list.
4. In response thereto, learned counsel for petitioners submits and places reliance on judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar versus State of Haryana (2003) 11 SCC 241 to submit that it is settled that illegality should not be allowed to be perpetuated and Versus
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Madhav Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Deep Charan Shukla And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural
Development Deptt. Lko. And 18 Others .....Respondent(s)
1
therefore the courts are under bounden duty to interfere with the same.
5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted as per the prayer itself that seniority list is being sought to be challenged after 19 years of it being finalized on 8th September, 2006 and subsequently also on 26th October, 2020. A perusal of memorandum of petition indicates that no cogent explanation has been given for challenging the seniority list after almost 19 years of it being issued.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and others versus State of Orissa and others, (2010) 12 SCC 471 has clearly held that seniority which is already settled can not be unsettled by belated approach to this court. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (surpa) is as follows:-
"30. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R. Mudgal, this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation. "
7. Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on judgment rendered in the case of Pawan Kumar (supra). However a perusal of aforesaid judgment indicates that the said case pertained to Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the law propounded that illegality should not be allowed to be perpetuated was exercised in terms of Article 136 of the Constitution of India and that too where the Supreme Court found conviction of the appellant to be against material on record and the said law was propounded only on the ground that the co-accused in the criminal proceedings did not prefer any appeal against conviction. It was held that since Supreme Court was of the opinion that conviction of the appellant therein was against material on record, the same benefit was required to be extended to the other co-accused as well irrespective of the fact that he did not prefer any appeal against his conviction since illegality WRIA No. 10598 of 2025
2
should not be allowed to be perpetuated.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case where a lis does not pertain to infringement of any fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution of India.
9. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any good ground to entertain this petition which is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost.
September 15, 2025
prabhat WRIA No. 10598 of 2025
3
(Manish Mathur,J.)
3