1987 JTR(SC) 710
1987 AIR(SC) 2322 ; 1987 2 CLR 325 ; 1987 2 CurCC(SC) 796 ; 1988 56 FLR 156 ; 1988 JLJ 12 ; 1988 JLJ 135 ; 1987 3 JT 550 ; 1987 2 KLT(SN) 49 2 ; 1987 LIC 1919 ; 1988 1 LLN 77 ; 1987 PLJR(SC) 77 ; 1987 2 Scale 509 ; 1987 4 SCC 450 ; 1987 SCC(L&S) 458 ; 1987 5 SLR 281 ; 1987 5 SLR 750
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 2189 of 1987 (Arising out of S. L. P. (C) No. 5921 of 1985 ), D/- 8-9-1987.
Vasant Kumar Jaiswal, Appellant
Versus
State of M.P., Respondent.
(A) The relevant statutory framework comprising rules 12(b) and 12(c) of the M. P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules 1961, which govern seniority determination for promoted and officiating government servants, was examined by the court. In the absence of any specific statutory rule or executive memorandum dictating the method for determining seniority in the relevant grade, the court applied the general principle that seniority must be determined based on the length of service. The provisions contemplate that a promoted servant counts seniority from confirmation, with inter-se ranking based on merit and prior lower service, while officiating arrangements maintain existing seniority unless otherwise specified through specific mechanisms such as merit lists or transfer orders; however, these detailed rules were held inapplicable to the instant case, leading to the application of the foundational length-of-service norm.
(B) Key legal principles include that seniority in government service is ordinarily determined by length of service where no statutory or executive rule provides otherwise; rules for promoted and officiating servants do not apply when they are not relevant; and High Court findings on seniority determination are binding if supported by principle and equity.
Facts of the case:
A government servant filed an appeal challenging an order determining seniority, seeking special leave against the dismissal of the petition by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which relied on the general rule of length of service for seniority determination.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly dismissed the petition, as the special rules were not attracted to the facts; the court observed that if the appellant makes a representation, it would be considered on principles of law and equity.
Issues:
Whether rules 12(b) and 12(c) of the M. P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules 1961 were applicable for determining the appellants seniority and whether seniority should be determined on length of service in the absence of specific rules.
Ratio Decidendi:
In the absence of statutory or executive rules prescribing the mode of determining seniority in a grade, the normal rule of length of service applies, and the High Court was correct in dismissing the petition.
Result:
The appeal was disposed of, the High Court order was upheld, and the appellant was directed to make a representation for consideration under principles of law and equity.
(A) The relevant statutory framework comprising rules 12(b) and 12(c) of the M. P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules 1961, which govern seniority determination for promoted and officiating government servants, was examined by the court. In the absence of any specific statutory rule or executive memorandum dictating the method for determining seniority in the relevant grade, the court applied the general principle that seniority must be determined based on the length of service. The provisions contemplate that a promoted servant counts seniority from confirmation, with inter-se ranking based on merit and prior lower service, while officiating arrangements maintain existing seniority unless otherwise specified through specific mechanisms such as merit lists or transfer orders; however, these detailed rules were held inapplicable to the instant case, leading to the application of the foundational length-of-service norm.
(B) Key legal principles include that seniority in government service is ordinarily determined by length of service where no statutory or executive rule provides otherwise; rules for promoted and officiating servants do not apply when they are not relevant; and High Court findings on seniority determination are binding if supported by principle and equity.
Facts of the case:
A government servant filed an appeal challenging an order determining seniority, seeking special leave against the dismissal of the petition by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which relied on the general rule of length of service for seniority determination.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly dismissed the petition, as the special rules were not attracted to the facts; the court observed that if the appellant makes a representation, it would be considered on principles of law and equity.
Issues:
Whether rules 12(b) and 12(c) of the M. P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules 1961 were applicable for determining the appellants seniority and whether seniority should be determined on length of service in the absence of specific rules.
Ratio Decidendi:
In the absence of statutory or executive rules prescribing the mode of determining seniority in a grade, the normal rule of length of service applies, and the High Court was correct in dismissing the petition.
Result:
The appeal was disposed of, the High Court order was upheld, and the appellant was directed to make a representation for consideration under principles of law and equity.
D.N.Mishra, T.C.SHARMA, V.A.BOBDE
Judgement
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.:- Special leave granted.
2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which in accordance with the well settled principle of this Court as also the High Court held that in the absence of any statutory rule or executive memorandum or order laying down the rule for determination of seniority in a grade, the normal rule applicable would be to determine the seniority on the basis of length in service. Counsel for the appellant contends that in the instant case there were two rules being 12(b) and 12(c) of the M. P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules 1961 governing the case. These rules read as follows :-
"(b). Promoted Government Servants
A promoted Government servant shall count his seniority from the date of his confirmation in the service to which he has been promoted and shall be placed in the gradation list immediately below the last confirmed member of that service but above all the probationers.
Provided that where two or more promoted Government servants are confirmed with effect from the same date the appointing authority shall determine their inter se seniority in the service in which they are confirmed, with due regard to the order in which they were included in the merit list, if any, prepared for determining their suitability for promotion, and their relative seniority in the lower service from which they have been promoted.
(c) Officiating Government Servants:
The inter se seniority of Government servants promoted to officiate in a higher service or a higher category of posts shall during the period of their officiation, be the same as that in their substantive service or grade irrespective of the dates on which they began to officiate in the higher service or grade; Provided that -
(i) If they were selected for officiation from a list in which the names of Government servants considered suitable for trial in or promotion to the higher service or grade were arranged in order of merit. Their inter se seniority shall be determined in accordance with the order of merit in such list;
(ii) the seniority of a permanent servant appointed to officiate in another service or post by transfer shall be determined adhoc by the appointing authority;
Provided that the seniority proposed to be assigned to such Government servant shall be determined and intimated to him in the order of appointment;
(iii) where a permanent Government servant is reduced to a lower service, grade or category of posts, he shall rank in the gradation fist of the latter service, grade or category of posts above all the other in that gradation list unless the authority ordering such reduction by a special order indicates a different position in the gradation list for such reduced Government servant;
(iv) where an officiating Government servant is reverted to this substantive service or post he shall revert to his position in that gradation list relating to his substantive appointment which he held before he was appointed to officiate in the other service or post."
In the proper perspective these two rules do not apply in this matter. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the High Court was right. We are unable in this connection to sustain the reasoning and the view expressed by the learned single Judge of the said High Court in Civil Misc. Petn. No. 181 of 1983 Umeshnarayan Mishra v. The State of M.P.
3. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that the High Court is right in dismissing the petition under appeal and the view it took was correct.
4. In view of the short length of service of the appellant, if the appellant makes a representation, the respondent in the light of the principles of law and equity will consider such representation.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Order accordingly.