The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that the State Government, not the Public Service Commission, must first determine whether lecturers appointed under a single advertisement but across multiple subjects constitute a single cadre or separate subject-wise cadres before any seniority list can be finalized. The Court found that repeated non-compliance with its prior directions amounted to contempt and imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs, later modified to Rs. 1 lakh for humanitarian purposes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute concerns the inter-se seniority of lecturers appointed by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) pursuant to a single advertisement dated 07.02.2014 for recruitment to the post of Lecturer in the Uttar Pradesh Teacher Education Service (Group-G), Level 8. These appointments were made between 2017 and 2021 across 24 different subjects, with selection results declared subject-wise on different dates. The Appointing Authority, the Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), Lucknow, sought to prepare a unified seniority list but faced legal challenges over whether seniority should be determined subject-wise or on a unified cadre basis.
Key Facts
The UPPSC issued a single advertisement dated 07.02.2014 for recruitment across multiple subjects.
Selection results were declared subject-wise, with recommendations issued on different dates between 2017 and 2021.
Appointments were made by SCERT, Lucknow, based on these subject-wise recommendations.
The U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991, Rule 5, provides that seniority among persons appointed through a single selection shall follow the merit list prepared by the Commission.
The Uttar Pradesh Teacher Education (Lecturer Cadre) Service Rules, 2010, Rule 4, defines cadre structure as subject-wise, with strength determined by the Government.
Rule 19 of the 2010 Rules mandates that seniority shall be determined in accordance with the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991.
The petitioners contended that since the recruitment was under one advertisement, Rule 5 of the 1991 Rules required a combined merit list.
The respondents argued that since posts were subject-wise under Appendix 'A' of the 2010 Rules, seniority must be determined subject-wise.
Procedural History
07.02.2014: UPPSC issued advertisement for recruitment of Lecturers across 24 subjects.
2017 - 2021: Subject-wise selection results issued and appointments made by SCERT.
15.06.2022: SCERT issued tentative seniority list based on date of appointment subject-wise.
06.03.2024: Single Judge, Allahabad HC, in Writ-A No. 3522/2024, directed UPPSC to provide a combined merit list to SCERT within one month and directed SCERT to publish it, invite objections, and issue final list within two months.
05.11.2024: Co-ordinate Bench, in Writ-A No. 5823/2024, reiterated the direction for a combined merit list and clarified that issues regarding cadre definition remain open for State determination.
29.04.2025: Division Bench, in Special Appeal Defective No. 296/2025, modified the earlier direction, clarifying that UPPSC is not required to prepare a common merit list treating all subjects as a single cadre. It held that the question of whether lecturers form a single cadre or subject-wise cadres must be decided by the State Government at the first instance.
04.09.2025: UPPSC, relying on its legal opinion, declined to prepare a combined merit list and instead submitted subject-wise merit lists.
26.12.2025: SCERT issued a tentative seniority list based on subject-wise appointment dates.
10.03.2026: SCERT issued final seniority list, rejecting all objections on the ground that UPPSC had not provided a combined list and that subject-wise determination was lawful.
25.05.2026: Present batch of writ petitions (Writ-A Nos. 4049, 4654, 4235 of 2026) decided by the Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
The petitioners, a group of 10+ lecturers appointed under the 2014 advertisement, argued that:
The recruitment was under a single advertisement, triggering Rule 5 of the 1991 Rules, which mandates seniority be determined by a single merit list.
The Division Bench’s order dated 29.04.2025 did not prohibit a combined list; it only clarified that the State must decide the cadre issue first.
UPPSC’s refusal to prepare a combined list and SCERT’s reliance on subject-wise dates violated the spirit and letter of the Court’s directions.
The State Government’s silence on the cadre issue amounted to abdication of statutory duty.
For the Respondents
The State, UPPSC, and SCERT contended that:
The 2010 Rules define the cadre as subject-wise under Appendix 'A', making subject-wise seniority the only legally permissible method.
The Division Bench’s order of 29.04.2025 explicitly clarified that UPPSC need not prepare a common merit list treating all subjects as one cadre.
UPPSC acted lawfully by submitting subject-wise lists as per the clarified direction.
SCERT merely followed the list provided by UPPSC and had no authority to override the cadre structure defined in the 2010 Rules.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
Quashing of the final seniority list dated 10.03.2026.
Direction to UPPSC to prepare a combined merit list under Rule 5 of the 1991 Rules.
Direction to SCERT to prepare a new seniority list after the State Government determines whether the cadre is single or subject-wise.
Costs for non-compliance with prior judicial directions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State Government must first determine, in accordance with Rule 4 and Rule 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Teacher Education (Lecturer Cadre) Service Rules, 2010, whether lecturers appointed under a single advertisement constitute a single cadre or subject-wise cadres, before the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission is obligated to submit a combined or subject-wise merit list under Rule 5 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Rule 5 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991, which states that seniority among persons appointed through a single selection shall be determined by the merit list prepared by the Commission. They argued that the 2014 advertisement constituted a single selection, regardless of subject-wise results, and therefore a combined merit list was mandatory. They cited the co-ordinate bench’s order dated 05.11.2024, which directed a combined list, and contended that the Division Bench’s modification did not negate this obligation but merely deferred the cadre determination to the State. They emphasized that the State’s inaction rendered the judicial directions nugatory.
For the Respondent
The respondents relied on Rule 4 of the 2010 Rules, which defines the cadre as subject-wise, and Rule 19, which incorporates the 1991 Rules subject to the service rules. They argued that the Division Bench’s order dated 29.04.2025 explicitly clarified that the Commission was not required to prepare a common merit list treating all subjects as a single cadre. They maintained that the State Government, as the competent authority under the 2010 Rules, alone has the power to define the cadre structure. UPPSC, they asserted, acted lawfully by submitting subject-wise lists as per the clarified direction, and SCERT had no discretion to override the statutory cadre framework.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the sequence of judicial orders and the statutory framework. It acknowledged that the Division Bench’s order dated 29.04.2025 had clarified that the UPPSC was not required to prepare a common merit list treating all subjects as a single cadre. However, the Court emphasized that this clarification was not a license for the State to remain passive.
"The direction of the learned Single Judge cannot be construed as requiring the Commission to prepare a common merit list in respect of lecturers in different subjects treating them to be a single cadre. Such construction would certainly frustrate the observations of learned Single Judge in previous part of the order leaving the issues to be dealt with by the competent authority, at the first instance."
The Court held that the Division Bench’s clarification was not an end in itself but a procedural directive: the State Government, as the ultimate authority under the 2010 Rules, was obligated to determine the cadre structure first. Only after this determination could the UPPSC submit the appropriate merit list - either combined or subject-wise.
The Court found that the State Government, through the Principal Secretary (Basic Shiksha), had taken no step to constitute a committee, issue a policy, or even formally consider the issue. SCERT, as the Appointing Authority, had no legal authority to unilaterally decide the cadre question. By accepting subject-wise lists without any State direction, SCERT effectively assumed a legislative function reserved for the Government.
The Court observed that the UPPSC’s legal opinion, while technically defensible, was not a substitute for a statutory determination by the State. The failure of the State to act rendered the entire process arbitrary and in violation of the Court’s prior directions. The Court noted that the petitioners were forced to return to court not because of legal ambiguity, but because of administrative inaction.
The Court further held that the final seniority list dated 10.03.2026, being issued without any prior determination by the State Government on the cadre issue, was legally unsustainable. The Court declined to adjudicate the merits of whether the cadre should be single or subject-wise, as that was a policy decision reserved for the State.
The Verdict
The writ petitions were disposed of with the following directions:
The final seniority list dated 10.03.2026 is set aside.
The State Government, through the Principal Secretary (Basic Shiksha), Lucknow, shall determine within four weeks whether the lecturers appointed under the 2014 advertisement constitute a single cadre or subject-wise cadres, after considering Rule 4 and Rule 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Teacher Education (Lecturer Cadre) Service Rules, 2010, and Rule 5 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991.
Only after this determination shall the UPPSC submit the appropriate merit list to SCERT.
SCERT shall then issue a new seniority list in accordance with the State’s decision.
A cost of Rs. 5 lakhs was initially imposed on the State for contempt of court, but was waived on the condition that Rs. 1 lakh be deposited within three days into the Allahabad High Court Bar Association’s account for the medical treatment of an injured woman advocate.
What This Means For Similar Cases
State Determination Is Mandatory Before Merit Lists Are Finalized
Practitioners must now ensure that in any service matter involving cadre definition, the competent authority (usually the State Government) has formally determined the structure before any seniority list is prepared.
Merit lists prepared by commissions without prior State determination on cadre are vulnerable to being set aside.
Judicial Directions Cannot Be Circumvented by Legal Opinions
Administrative bodies cannot rely on internal legal opinions to bypass court orders.
A legal opinion from a commission does not substitute for a statutory decision by the State.
Non-compliance with judicial directions, even if technically defensible, may attract costs or contempt proceedings.
Cadre Definition Trumps Recruitment Mechanism
Even if recruitment is conducted under a single advertisement, the statutory cadre structure under the service rules governs seniority determination.
Courts will not impose a combined merit list unless the service rules or State policy explicitly require it.
Practitioners must analyze the service rules holistically - Rule 5 of the 1991 Rules operates subject to the cadre structure defined in the 2010 Rules.
