IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR UTTAR PRADESH

LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW

Writ Petition No.

(S/S) of 2016

1.

Aditya Kumar, aged about 52 years, son of Sri Jai Bhagwan, resident
of House No. 7, First Floor, Ansal Garden Enclave, Hapur Road,
Ghaziabad-201103.

2.

Rishi Pal, aged about 51 years, son of Late Sri Genda Singh, resident
of 1028/16, Uttari Rampuri, Near Sangam Hotel, Roorkee Road,
Muzaffarnagar. 251001
.............. Petitioners
Versus

1.

State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of Medical

Health and Family Welfare, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat,
Lucknow.

2.

Director General, Medical and Health Services, Uttar Pradesh,

Swasthya Bhawan, Lucknow.

3.

Superintending Engineer, Medical and Health Services, Swasthya

Bhawan, Lucknow-226001.

4.

Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer,

Gautam Buddha Nagar.

5.

Shri Ram Kumar, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer, Unnao.

6.

Shri Nitin Kumar Kulshreshtra, adult in age, working as Junior

Engineer, Agra.

7.

Shri Vinay Kumar Mishra, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer,

Fatehpur.

8.

Shri Om Shanti, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer, Badaun.

9.

Shri Dharm Raj Singh, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer,

Kaushambi.

10.

Shri Vijay Kumar Saxena, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer,

Kanpur Nagar.

11.

Shri Ram Nayan Prasad, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer,

Azambagh.

12.

Shri Ram Manorath Maurya, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer,

Balrampur.
............. Opposite parties/Respondents

Writ Petition Under Article 226

of the Constitution of India
The petitioner named above respectfully showeth as under:1.

That the petitioner declares that no writ petition has been filed in
respect of the subject matter contained in this writ petition in this
Honble Court either at Allahabad or at Lucknow. The petitioner has
not received any notice/information or copy of any caveat by
registered post or otherwise from any of the opposite parties or from
any other source for giving notice of this writ petition and this is the
first writ petition being filed by the petitioner.

2.

That by means of this writ the petitioners, who are Junior Engineer
(Class III) presently having a grade pay of Rs. 7600/- beg to assail
the Order dated 05-01-2016 by which the Superintendent Engineer
of the respondent department has required the Chief Medical
Officers of various districts to forward the character roll entries of
respondents nubmers-4 to 12, mentioned in the list for the purpose of
forwarding the said names for consideration of the State Government
for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, primarily on the
ground that the said Order has been issued even without preparing a
final seniority list; and by arbitrarily treating the petitioners as junior
even while the petitioners were appointed after due selection and
interview in the year 1987 and regularized w.e.f. the date of initial
appointment vide an Office Order dated 07.07.2003 and all the
incumbents whose names are contained in Order dated 05.01.2016
were appointed in the year 1994 and are much Junior to the
petitioners. A tentative seniority list dated 15.01.2009 was circulated
in which objections were invited within a period of 1 month. The

petitioners having been appointed in the year 1987 submitted an

objection to the Seniority List dated 15-01-2009 in which the
petitioners had categorically submitted that in view of the Law laid
down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Direct Recruit
Class-II Engineering Officers Association and Others v. State of
Maharashtra and Others, AIR 1990 SC 1607, their placement below
the appointees of 1994 was per se illegal and unsustainable. In the
said representation, it was also prayed that in case any clarification is
required, an opportunity of hearing be provided. True copy of the
Order dated 05-01-2016, seniority list dated 15.01.2009 and
objections dated 28.01.2009 are being annexed herewith as
Annexures No. 1, 2 & 3 to this writ petition.
3.

That after the submission of the objection to the Seniority List dated
15-01-2009, no exercise was done by the respondents and no final
seniority list was published. In fact, no occasion had arisen in the
mean time for acting upon seniority; and it appears that only after the
occurrence of vacancies on the promotional posts, for the first time
need has arisen to make promotions to the post of Assistant
Engineer. It is on account of the said need to make promotions that
the Order dated 05-01-2016 has been issued which seeks to
implement the tentative seniority list which as submitted above is not
worthy of being acted upon as objections against the said list have
not been disposed off and the said list has not attained finality.
Moreover, the incumbent appointed well nigh 7 years after
appointment of the petitioner have been placed en-block above the
petitioners.

4.

That to bring home certain facts it is submitted that in response to an

advertisement published by the respondent department dated 4th
March 1987, inviting application for ad hoc appointments on the post
of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and Junior Engineer (Civil) the
petitioners had applied. True copy of the Advertisement dated 04-031987 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.-4 to this writ
petition.

5.

That in furtherance of the said advertisement, the applications

submitted were scrutinized and those found qualified were
shortlisted. Interviews of the applicants alongwith shortlisted
candidates were held and the appointments were made after due
interview. Thereafter, vide Office Memorandum dated 15-07-1987,
the list of 46 ad-hoc employees (including the petitioners) was
released. The said Office Memorandum directed the selected
employees to report for their within a period of 15 days with the
following requisite documents:a. High School Mark sheet,
b. Diploma in Civil Engineering,
c. Fitness Certificate by the Chief Health Officer,
d. Character Certificate issued by State Government or the
Central Government.
e. Character Certificate issued by the Principal of the
Educational Institution last studied in,
f. Family Planning Certificate,
g. Declaration of having 1 alive wife only.
h. Declaration that the applicant has not been dismissed from any
State or Central Government Services in the past.
A copy of the Office Memorandum dated 15.07.1987 is being
annexed herewith as Annexure No.-5 to this writ petition.

6.

That the Lok Sewa Ayog (Uttar Pradesh) even without any
requisition sent by the respondent department, sent a list dated
21.09.1993. The list contained names of 57 candidates said to have
been selected in the interviews held on 05.07.1993, 06.07.1993,
07.07.1993, 08.07.1993, 14.07.1993, 13.07.1993, 15.07.1993, and
17.07.1993. The process adopted in selecting these candidates was
the same as was adopted in selecting the petitioners i.e. scrutiny of
documents followed by interview of qualified candidates. In
furtherance of the list sent by the Lok Sewa Ayog, the respondent
department issued an Office Memorandum dated 12.03.1994 for
appointing the incumbents recommended by Public Service
Commission on the post of Junior Engineers. A true copy of the list
of candidates recommended by the Lok Sewa Ayog and the Office
Memorandum dated 12.03.1994 are being annexed herewith as
Annexures No.-6 and 7 to this writ petition.

7.

That as the petitioners had been appointed against clear vacancies

and after following due process of selection which was akin to the
selection made by the Lok Sewa Ayog and the petitioners had been
substantively appointed though the order of appointment mentions
the word "ad-hoc", fearing ouster on account of the selections made
by the Lok Sewa Ayog, the petitioners alongwith similarly placed
ad-hoc employees approached this Honble Court through Writ
Petition No. 2135 (S/S) of 1994 in which this Honble Court was
pleased to pass an interim Order dated 02.05.1994 directing the
respondent department not to discontinue the services of the
petitioners and other similarly situated employees and to absorb the
candidates selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission
elsewhere. The petitioners thus continued to work on their respective

posts without any break in service; and the incumbents

recommended by the Public Service Commission were appointed
without disturbing the petitioners. A true copy of the Order dated
02.05.1994 passed by this Honble Court is being annexed herewith
as Annexure No.-8 to this writ petition, which reads as under:"Learned standing counsel prays for and is granted six weeks
time either to seek instructions or to file counter affidavit. List in
the month of July[ 1884 alongwith writ petition No. 411 (S/B) of
1994 and similar other petitions.
Meanwhile, it is provided that the selected candidates by U.P.
Public Services Commission may be absorbed elsewhere but the
services of the petitioners shall not be discontinued till further
orders of this Court."

8.

That before passing formal orders of regularization of the petitioners

on 26.02.2003 the department published a Seniority List and after
inviting objections a Final seniority list was published vide Office
Memorandum dated 07.06.2003 from Serial No. 1 to 41. The names
of the petitioners were not included in this list. The regular
appointees selected by the Lok Sewa Ayog were holding position
from Serial No. 10 to 41 in this new seniority list and in the Column
No. 9 their date of appointment has been mentioned to be in the year
1994/1995. A true copy of the Office Memorandum dated
07.06.2003 alognwith the Seniority list dated 07-06-2003 is being
annexed herewith as Annexure No.-9 and 10 to this Writ Petition.

9.

That after the issuance of the seniority list dated 7.6.2003, an Office
Memorandum dated 07.07.2003 was issued regularizing the services
of the petitioners. The said Office Memorandum was issued in
furtherance of the Government Order No. 884(1)/5-6-2003/3701/
1995 dated 29.05.2003 and as per the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh
Regularization of ad-hoc Appointments Rules. 1979 and (Third
Amendment) Rules, 2001. The regularization of the petitioners was

in accordance with the Rules and not pursuant to any direction of

this Honble Court. The petitioners alongwith 21 ad-hoc employees
were regularized; and the date of substantive appointment of the
petitioners is mentioned as 15.07.1987 in respect of the petitioner
numbes-1 and 2. A true copy of the Office Memorandum dated
07.07.2003 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.11 to this
writ petition.
10.

That a tentative seniority list dated 15.01.2009 was published after

the regularization of the petitioners. In the said seniority list the
petitioners alongwith other ad-hoc employees were placed from
Serial No. 42 to 63 though their respective dates of substantive
appointment (Column No. 10 & 12) have been explicitly stated to be
in the year 1987. Despite acknowledging the fact that the petitioners
date of substantive appointment alongwith the other ad-hoc
employees was July 1987; and have been serving the respondent
department since the year 1987 without any break, the respondent
department has arbitrarily placed the petitioners below the regular
appointees, appointed in 1994, who are much junior to the
petitioners, as they have joined the department well nigh 7 years
after the petitioners.

11.

That the said seniority list dated 15.01.2009 placing the petitioners
below their juniors is manifestly wrong as the petitioners have joined
the department back in the year 1987, after due selection and
interview; and as such their seniority has to be reckoned from the
date of initial appointment which is the date of substantive
appointment mentioned in the order of regularization. This has been
laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of, Direct

Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association and Others v.

State of Maharashtra and Others, [AIR 1990 SC 1607], wherein the
Constitution Bench has been pleased to observe as follows:(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule,
his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment
and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of
the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc
and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement,
the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for
considering the seniority.
(B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the
procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in
the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in
accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be
counted.

12.

That the petitioners having been appointed in the year 1987

submitted an objection to the Impugned Seniority List dated
15.01.2009 in which the petitioners had categorically pointed out
that in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in
the case of Direct Recruits (Supra), their placement below the
appointees of 1994 was per se illegal and unsustainable, but the
objections were not considered by the respondent department.

13.

That the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991,

hereinafter referred to as "1991 Rules", were framed in exercise of
powers conferred under article 309 of the constitution of India. The
said rules have overriding effect by virtue of Rule 3 which reads as
follows:"Rule 3:- These rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything
to the contrary contained in any other service rules made hereto
before."

A true of copy of the 1991 rules is being annexed herewith as

Annexure No.-12 to this writ petition.

14.

That in the said 1991 rules, substantive appointment means an

appointment not being an ad hoc appointment on a post in the cadre
service made after selection according to the service rules relating to
that service. In Rule 5, the second proviso stipulates that persons
appointed in a subsequent selection shall be junior to the persons
appointed as a result of previous selection. The explanation
appended to rule 7 provides that where the order of substantive
appointment from the feeding cadre specifies a particular back date
w.e.f. which a person is substantively appointed, that date will be
deemed to be the date of order of substantive appointment. Likewise
in proviso 2 of Rules 8(1) it is provided that if the appointment order
specifies a particular back date, w.e.f. from which a person is said to
be substantively appointed, that date will be deemed to be the date of
substantive appointment.

15.

That the Order of appointment pursuant to the exercise done under

the regularization rules and the relevant government order was
issued on 07.07.2003 regularizing the petitioners. In the said order
the date of substantive appointment has been mentioned as
15.07.1987 in respect of the petitioners no. 1 & 2. In fact the
petitioners were initially appointed on the said dates and as such by
virtue of the order dated 07-07-2003 specifying the date of order of
substantive appointment, it is that date alone from which the
petitioners will be deemed to be substantively appointment.

16.

That under rule 9 provision has been made for preparation of

seniority list. The said rule contemplates that as soon as maybe after
appointments are made to a service, the appointing authority shall
prepare a tentative seniority list of the persons appointed

substantively to the service in accordance with the provisions of the

Rules of 1991. The tentative seniority list is required to be circulated
to the persons concerned and objections are to be invited from the
concerned persons. The said objections are required to be disposed
of by a reasoned order prior to issuance of final seniority list. The
tentative seniority list was first circulated on 15-01-2009 (though it
ought to have been circulated much earlier) and objections were
invited to be filed within 1 month from the date of circulation.
Objection was filed by the petitioners on 28.01.2009 in which it was
categorically indicted that the date of substantive appointment of the
petitioners being July 1987, they cannot be placed below the direct
appointees of 1994. As submitted above all these objections were not
considered and a final seniority list was not circulated though the
respondents were under an obligation to circulate the final seniority
list after considering the objections filed by the petitioners. For the
laxity on the part of the respondents in issuing the final seniority list
the petitioners cannot be made to suffer.
17.

That the respondent department has acted arbitrarily by not

considering the objections filed by the petitioners against the
seniority list dated 15.01.2009. The said seniority list cannot be acted
upon as the same is only tentative and has not attained finality; and
in any case does not lay down the correct seniority of the Junior
Engineers working in the department.

18.

That the impugned order dated 05.01.2016 has arbitrarily been

issued making the tentative seniority list dated 15.01.2009 as the
base, though the said seniority list has not attained finality. The date
of substantive appointment of the petitioners is 30.7.1987 and

28.7.1987, which is also mentioned in the order of regularization

dated 7.7.2003 as well as the tentative seniority list dated 15.1.2009.
The services rendered by the petitioners cannot be ignored, more so
as the appointment of the petitioners was not through back door but
after a proper selection and the procedure adopted in making the
selection of the petitioners is the same as was followed by the Public
Service Commission in appointing the respondents numbers 4 to 12.
19.

That ever since the petitioners have joined on the post of Junior
Engineer in July 1987, they have been working on the said posts for
the past about 29 years. The petitioners have a right to be considered
for promotion as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
In any case, the petitioners cannot be subjected to stagnation and
have an indefeasible and fundamental right for being considered for
promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer and being senior to the
respondent numbers-4 to 12, who as submitted above were
substantively appointed in the year 1994, the petitioners are liable to
be considered for promotion before the said respondents numbers-4
to 12 are considered.

20.

That in view of the facts that the date of substantive appointment of

the petitioners is July 1987 and those of the respondents numbers-4
to 12 is of the year 1994, the petitioners are senior and consequently
the respondents be directed to finalize the seniority list placing the
appointees of 1987 en-block senior to the appointees of the year
1994 and to give effect to the said seniority list for the purposes of
making promotions on the post of Assistant Engineers.

21.

That in view of the facts and circumstances submitted above, the

impugned order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the Superintending

Engineer, contained in Annexure Number-1 be stayed and the

opposite parties numbers-1, 2 and 3 be directed to finalize the
seniority list by placing the names of the petitioners and other
appointees of the year 1987 above the appointees of the year 1994
and forward the names of the petitioners and other similarly
appointed Junior Engineers for being considered for promotion on
the post of Assistant Engineers on the vacancies which have since
occurred, otherwise the petitioners would suffer an irreparable loss
and injury which cannot be made good in any event.
22.

That having no other alternative and efficacious remedy, the

petitioner begs to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this
Honble Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution and begs to
prefer the aforesaid writ petition inter-alia on the following
Grounds:-

GROUNDS
(A)

Because the impugned order dated 05-01-2016 has wrongly been

issued in as much as the same is based on a tentative seniority list
dated 15.1.2009, objections against which were given by the
petitioners but the same are pending and the said seniority list dated
15.1.2009 has not attained finality and thus cannot be acted upon.

(B)

Because the petitioners were regularized vide an order dated

7.7.2003 and while doing so, the date of substantive appointment of
the petitioners and other similarly circumstanced incumbents have
been clearly mentioned as July 1987 and as such the petitioners are
much senior to the Junior Engineers appointed in the year 1994, and
as such they have a right for being considered for promotion before

considering the appointees of the year 1994 and as such the order
dated 5.1.2016 contained in Annexure Number-1 cannot be
sustained.
(C)

Because besides the fact that the order of regularization dated

7.7.2003, mentions the date of substantive appointment of the
petitioners as July 1987, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers
Association and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, [AIR
1990 SC 1607], entitles the petitioners for being placed above the
appointees of the year 1994.

(D)

Because it was incumbent upon the respondents to have first

finalized the tentative seniority list dated 15.1.2009 against which
the petitioners have submitted an objection within the time stipulated
in the said seniority list and the same not having been done forbids
the respondents to act upon the tentative seniority list dated
15.1.2009, which in any case has not been drawn in accordance with
the well settled principles of service jurisprudence and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Rules.

(E)

Because the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Seniority Rules,

1991, have overriding effect by virtue of Rule 3 and, therefore, it is
obligatory upon the respondents to follow the mandate of the said
Rules.

(F)

Because the second proviso of Rule 5 of the 1991 Rules stipulates

that persons appointed on result of a subsequent selection shall be
junior to the persons appointed as a result of previous selection.

(G)

Because under rule 9 of the said Rules, provision has been made for
consideration of objection to the tentative seniority list and disposing
them with a reasoned order prior to issuance of final seniority list.

(H)

Because the respondents not having followed the mandate of the

1991

Rules,

the

petitioners

cannot

be

subjected

to

any

discrimination.
(I)

Because the petitioners after due selection and appointment have

been consistently discharging the duties on the post of Junior
Engineer ever since 1987, which mentions the same as the date of
substantive appointment in the order of regularization dated 7.7.2003
and as such the petitioners cannot be stagnated for all times to come;
and having worked on the post of Junior Engineers for well nigh 29
years they have claim for promotion on the post of Assistant
Engineers before considering the claim of the respondents numbers4 to 12 and consequently the order dated 5.1.2016 contained in
Annexure Nubmer-1 is rendered arbitrary and unsustainable.

(J)

Because even otherwise the order dated 5.1.2016 has been issued in
a mechanical manner on the basis of an incorrect seniority list, which
in any case is only tentative and the passing of the said order dated
5.1.2016

is

rendered

arbitrary,

high

handed,

unjust

and

unsustainable.

PR AYE R
Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court
may graciously be pleased to:
(a)

issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of

certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 05.01.2016, passed by

the opposite party number-3, contained in Annexure Numbers-1 to

this writ petition;
(b)

issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of

mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the
orders dated 05.01.2016, passed by the opposite party number-3,
contained in Annexure Number-1 to this writ petition, and to direct
the respondents numbers-1, 2 and 3 to forthwith prepare a final
seniority list and not act upon the seniority list dated 15.1.2009;

(c)

issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of

mandamus commanding the respondents numbers-1, 2 and 3 to
assign seniority to the petitioners w.e.f. the date of substantive
appointment being 15.07.1987 and to place the petitioners en-block
senior to the respondents who were substantively appointed on the
post of Junior Engineers in 1994; and to forward the names of the
petitioners for being considered for promotion on the post of
Assistant Engineers before considering the cases of respondents
numbers-4 to 12 for promotion;

(d)

issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this

Honble Court may deem just and necessary in the circumstances of
the case may also be passed; and

(e)

to allow the writ petition with costs.

Lucknow
Dated:

, 2016

(Kartikey Dubey)
Advocate
Counsel for the petitioners

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR UTTAR PRADESH

LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW
Writ Petition No.

(S/S) of 2016

1.

Aditya Kumar, aged about 52 years, son of Sri Jai Bhagwan, resident of House
No. 7, First Floor, Ansal Garden Enclave, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad-201103.

2.

Rishi Pal, aged about 51 years, son of Late Sri Genda Singh, resident of 1028/16,
Uttari Rampuri, Near Sangam Hotel, Roorkee Road, Muzaffarnagar. 251001
.............. Petitioners
Versus

1.

State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Health and

Family Welfare, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow.

2.

Director General, Medical and Health Services, Uttar Pradesh, Swasthya Bhawan,
Lucknow.

3.

Superintending Engineer, Medical and Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan,

Lucknow-226001.

4.

Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer, Gautam
Buddha Nagar.

5.

Shri Ram Kumar, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer, Unnao.

6.

Shri Nitin Kumar Kulshreshtra, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer, Agra.

7.

Shri Vinay Kumar Mishra, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer, Fatehpur.

8.

Shri Om Shanti, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer, Badaun.

9.

Shri Dharm Raj Singh, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer, Kaushambi.

10.

Shri Vijay Kumar Saxena, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer, Kanpur
Nagar.

11.

Shri Ram Nayan Prasad, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer, Azambagh.

12.

Shri Ram Manorath Maurya, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer, Balrampur.
............. Opposite parties/Respondents

AFFIDAVIT
I, Aditya Kumar, aged about 52 years, son of Sri Jai Bhagwan,

resident of House No. 7, First Floor, Ansal Garden Enclave, Hapur Road,
Ghaziabad, Hindu by religion, having done Diploma in Civil Engineering,
presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil), in the office of Chief Medical
Officer, Ghaziabad, the deponent do hereby annexing my ID-proof and
solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :-

1.

That the deponent is the petitioner number-1 and pairokar of the

petitioner number-2 in the aforesaid writ petition and as such he is
fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed to herein below.

2.

That the contents of paragraphs .............................................. of the

accompanying writ petition are true to the personal knowledge of the
deponent while those of paragraphs .............................................. are
believed by him to be true based on records and those of
paragraphs .............................................. are believed by me to be
true on the basis of legal advice.

3.

That Annexures-.............................................. to the writ petition are

true/ photo copies of its originals.

Lucknow
Dated:

, 2016

Deponent
VERIFICATION

I, the deponent named above, do hereby verify that the contents of

paragraphs ..............................................of this affidavit are true to my own
knowledge and those of paragraphs .............................................. are believed by
me to be true on the basis of records and those of paragraphs
.............................................. are believed to be true on the basis of legal advice.
No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed in it, so help me
God.
Lucknow
Dated:

, 2016

Deponent

I identify the deponent on the basis of records which the deponent

produced before me and who has signed this affidavit after understanding its
contents.
Advocate
Solemnly affirmed before me on ......................... at ............. a.m./p.m. by
Sri .................................................., the deponent who is identified by
Sri ..........................................., Advocate.
I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that he understands the
contents of this affidavit which have been read out and explained by me.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR UTTAR PRADESH

LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW
C.M. Application No. .................. of 2016
In re:
Writ Petition No.
(S/S) of 2016

1.

Aditya Kumar, aged about 52 years, son of Sri Jai Bhagwan, resident
of House No. 7, First Floor, Ansal Garden Enclave, Hapur Road,
Ghaziabad-201103.

2.

Rishi Pal, aged about 51 years, son of Late Sri Genda Singh, resident
of 1028/16, Uttari Rampuri, Near Sangam Hotel, Roorkee Road,
Muzaffarnagar. 251001
.............. Petitioners
Versus

1.

State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of Medical

Health and Family Welfare, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat,
Lucknow.

2.

Director General, Medical and Health Services, Uttar Pradesh,

Swasthya Bhawan, Lucknow.

3.

Superintending Engineer, Medical and Health Services, Swasthya

Bhawan, Lucknow-226001.

4.

Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer,

Gautam Buddha Nagar.

5.

Shri Ram Kumar, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer, Unnao.

6.

Shri Nitin Kumar Kulshreshtra, adult in age, working as Junior

Engineer, Agra.

7.

Shri Vinay Kumar Mishra, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer,

Fatehpur.

8.

Shri Om Shanti, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer, Badaun.

9.

Shri Dharm Raj Singh, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer,

Kaushambi.

10.

Shri Vijay Kumar Saxena, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer,

Kanpur Nagar.

11.

Shri Ram Nayan Prasad, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer,

Azambagh.

12.

Shri Ram Manorath Maurya, adult in age, working as Junior Engineer,

Balrampur.
............. Opposite parties/Respondents

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM RELIEF

The petitioner named above most respectfully showeth:That for the facts and circumstances stated in the accompanying writ
petition, it is expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the
impugned order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the Superintending Engineer,
contained in Annexure Number-1 be stayed and the opposite parties
nubmers-1, 2 and 3 be directed to finalize the seniority list by placing the
names of the petitioners and other appointees of the year 1987 above the
appointees of the year 1994 and forward the names of the petitioners and
other similarly appointed Junior Engineers for being considered for
promotion on the post of Assistant Engineers on the vacancies which have
since occurred, otherwise the petitioners would suffer an irreparable loss
and injury which cannot be made good in any event.
Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court
may graciously be pleased to stay the impugned order dated 05.01.2016
passed by the Superintending Engineer, contained in Annexure Number-1
and do direct the opposite parties nubmers-1, 2 and 3 to finalize the
seniority list by placing the names of the petitioners and other appointees of
the year 1987 above the appointees of the year 1994 and forward the names
of the petitioners and other similarly appointed Junior Engineers for being
considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineers on the
vacancies which have since occurred, and an ad interim order to the said
effect may also be passed.

Lucknow
Dated:

, 2016

(Kartikey Dubey)
Advocate
Counsel for the petitioners

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR UTTAR PRADESH

LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW
Writ Petition No.

(S/S) of 2016

Aditya Kumar, aged about 52 years, son of Sri Jai Bhagwan, resident of House No. 7,
First Floor, Ansal Garden Enclave, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad-201103, and another.
.............. Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Health and Family
Welfare, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, and others.
............. Opposite parties/Respondents

INDEX
S.N.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

Particulars
Page No.
List of Dates and Events
Application for Interim Relief
Writ Petition
Affidavit
ID Proof of deponent
Annexure-1
Copy of the Order dated 05-01-2016
Annexure-2
Copy of the seniority list dated 15.01.2009
Annexure-3
Copy of the objections dated 28.01.2009
Annexure-4
Copy of the advertisement dated
04.03.1987
Annexure-5
Copy of the Office Memorandum dated
15.07.1987
Annexure-6
Copy of the list of candidates
recommended by the Lok Sewa Ayog
Annexure-7
Copy of the Office Memorandum dated
12.03.1994
Annexure-8
Copy of the Order dated 02.05.1994,
passed in Writ Petition No. 2135 (S/S) of
1994
Annexure-9
Copy of the Office Memorandum dated
07.06.2003
Annexure-10 Copy of the Seniority list dated
07.06.2003
Annexure-11 Copy of the Office Memorandum dated
07.07.2003
Annexure-12 Copy of the Uttar Pradesh Government
Servant Seniority Rules, 1991
Vakalatnama

Lucknow
Dated:

, 2016

(Kartikey Dubey)
Advocate
Counsel for the petitioners

PROFORMA
1.

Category

2.

Cognizable by

3.

District

4.

Petitioner/ Applicant

5.

Respondent

6.

Petitioner's Advocate
Name & Roll No.

7.

Respondent's Advocate
Name & Roll No.

8.

Notice No. (If any)

9.

Court Fee Paid

Single Judge/ Division Bench

10. No. of Affidavits attached

CRIME DETAILS (If any)
11. Crime No. & Year
12. Under Section
13. Police Station & Crime
District
Lower Court/High Court Details (If any)
14. Lower/High Court Case
No. details
15. Lower/High Court order
date
16. Lower/High Court order
passed by
Extra Parties & Advocates (Add additional sheet, if required)
17. Extra Parties (Petitioner)
18. Extra Parties (Respondent)
19. Extra Advocates (Pet.)
With Roll No.
20. Extra Advocates (Res.)
(With Roll No.)

________________________
Advocate's Name & Signature

For Office Use Only

Case Type ______________________________

Case No. ________________ of ____________

For Office Use Only

Case Type ______________________________

Case No. ________________ of ____________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR UTTAR PRADESH

LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW
Writ Petition No.

(S/S) of 2016

Aditya Kumar, aged about 52 years, son of Sri Jai Bhagwan, resident of
House No. 7, First Floor, Ansal Garden Enclave, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad201103, and another.
.............. Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Health
and Family Welfare, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, and
others.
............. Opposite parties/Respondents

List of Dates and Events

Sl.
Dates
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

Events

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

Lucknow
Dated:

Hence this writ petition.

, 2016

(Kartikey Dubey)
Advocate
Counsel for the petitioners