Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M. RAVI VARMA AND ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT04/01/1972
BENCH:
KHANNA, HANS RAJ
BENCH:
KHANNA, HANS RAJ
SHELAT, J.M.
DUA, I.D.
MITTER, G.K.
CITATION:
1972 AIR 670 1972 SCR (2) 992
1972 SCC (1) 379
CITATOR INFO :
F 1975 SC 483 (15)
RF 1975 SC 538 (1,3,5,7,8, TO 14,16,21, TO 27
D 1975 SC2164 (22)
RF 1977 SC1673 (1)
RF 1986 SC2086 (6,7)
F 1989 SC1071 (5)
ACT:
Civil Service-office Memorandum of Union Ministry of Home
Affairs ,dated June 22, 1949 laying down that seniority of
Central Government servants in the same grade shall be
governed by length of service-subs quaintly Office
Memorandum dated December 20, 1959 laying down that
seniority to be determined on the basis of general
principles annexed to Memorandum-Memorandum of 1959 is not
retrospective--Persons appointed before it are governed by
1949 Memorandum.
HEADNOTE:
In order to provide for the seniority of Central Government
servants displaced from Pakistan the Home Ministry by Office
Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 laid down that the seniority
of all Central Government servants in the same grade shall
be governed by the length of their service in that grade.
By 1959 the object underlying that memorandum had been
achieved. Accordingly by another memorandum dated December
20, 1959 the Home Ministry decided that in respect of
persons appointed after that date the general rules annexed
to the memorandum shall apply, one of those being that
seniority shall be governed by the date of confirmation and
not length of service.
In 1957 the Central Board of Revenue issued a circular
whereby seniority in the offices under it was to be
determined on the basis of date of confirmation. In 1962 a
revised seniority list of employees under the Central Board
of Revenue was prepared on the basis of date of confirma-
tion. As a result respondents G and R who were Inspectors
of Central Excise lost several positions in the seniority.
These respondents had been appointed in 1947 and confirmed
in 1956. They filed writ petitions in the High Court of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
Mysore. The High Court held that the memorandum of 1949
applied to their case and their senority must be decided on
the basis of length of service and not the date of
confirmation.
S and T were employees under the Directorate General of
Health Services, Government of India. They had joined
service in 1950 and 1951 respectively. In the seniority
list, which had been prepared on the basis of length of
service in accordance with the Office Memorandum ,of 1949
their positions were 32 and 34. Subsquently Memorandum
dated June 19 1963 was issued by the Directorate General of
Health Services in which it was stated that Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes candidates who were confirmed in
reserved vacancies would rank senior to temporary, including
quasi-permanent persons respective of their positions in the
seniority list. As a result of the,application of this
principle S and T lost seniority by several positions. They
filed writ Petitions in the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana. The Single Judge dismissed their petitions but the
Division Bench allowed them on the ground that the
Memorandum dated June 19, 1963 issued by the Directorate of
Health Services was not in consonance with the Home
Ministry’s Memoranda 1949 and 1959.
Against the judgments of the High Courts the Union of India
and others appealed to this Court.
Dismissing the appeals,
993
HELD: (1) The office Memorandum dated December 22, 1959
expressly made it clear that the general principles
embodied in the annexure thereto were not to have
retrospective effect. In order to put the matter beyond any
pale of controversy, it was mentioned that "hereafter the
seniority of all persons appointed in the various Central
Services. after the date of these instructions should be
determined in accordance with the General principles annexed
hereto". It was therefore, manifest. that except in certain
cases with which the present appeals were not concerned laid
down in the Annexure thereto could not apply to persons ap-
sions laid down in the Annexure thereto could not apply to
persons appointed to the various central services before the
date of that Memorandum. [1000 6]
There was thus no escape from the conclusion that the
seniority of G and respondents who were appointed prior to
December 22, 1959 would have to be determined on the basis
of their length of service in accordance with the Office
Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 and not on the. basis of date
of their confirmation. This position was confirmed by the
Central Board of Revenue in its letter dated August 27, 1971
addressed, to all Collectors of Central Excise. [1002 D;
1001 E]
Mervyn Coutindo & Ors. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay &
Ors.,. [1966] 3 S.C.R. 600, referred to.
(ii) It was no doubt true that a direction was given in the
Memoran-and R respondents who were appointed prior to
December 22, 1959 would and Scheduled Tribe candidates
confirmed in reserved vacancies should be ranked senior to
temporary, including quasi-permanent persons irrespective of
their position in the seniority list but such direction went
beyond the rule of seniority contained in the office
Memorandum dated. December 22, 1959 issued by the Ministry
of Home Affairs in respect of employees appointed before the
date. It was not disputed that according to the Government
of India allocation of Business Rules, 1961 general
questions relating to recruitment promotion and seniority in
Central’ services had to be dealt with by the Ministry of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
Home Affairs. As S and. T respondents were appointed prior
to December 22, 1959 their seniority was governed by the
rule of length of service as contained in the Annexure to
the Memorandum dated December 22, 1959. [1003 E-H]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1845 and
1846 of 1968.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
January 10, 1968 and October 20, 1967 of the Mysore High
Court in Writ PetitiOns Nos. 1519 of 1067 and 1216 of 1965-
respectively.
Jagdish Swarup, Solicitor-General of India and S. P. Nayar,
for the appellants (in all the appeals).
S. S. Javali and M. Veerappa, for respondent No. 1 (in
C.As. Nos. 184-1 and 1946 of 1968 ).
S. L. Bhatia for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in C.A. No. 50
of 1969.
994
S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and K. R. Nagaraja, for the
Intervener (in C.A. No. 1845 of 1968).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Khanna, J. Whether the criterion to determine the seniority of R
avi Varma and Ganapathi Kini respondents should be
length of service in accordance with the Office Memorandum
dated June 22, 1949 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs,
as claimed by the said respondents, or whether it should be
the date of confirmation, as claimed by the appellants, is
the main question which arises for decision in civil appeals
Nos. 1845 and 1846 of 1968 which have been filed by the
Union of India and two others by special leave against the
judgment of Mysore High Court. Similar question arises in
respect of the seniority of Suresh Kumar and Tara Chand
Jain, respondents in civil appeal No. 50 of 1969 which has
been filed by the Union of India and two others on a
,certificate granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court
against the judgment of that Court reversing in Letters
Patent appeal the ,decision of the single judge and issuing
a writ in favour of those respondents. The High Court held
in all the cases that the seniority of the concerned
respondents should be determined on the basis of the length
of service in accordance with the above ,mentioned Office
Memorandum.
Before giving the facts of the three cases, it would be
pertinent to refer to two Office Memoranda issued by the
Ministry of Home Affairs. One of the memoranda is dated
June 22, 1949. It was mentioned in this memorandum that the
Government of India had under consideration the question of
the fixation of seniority of ;displaced government servants
and temporary employees in the various grades. Employees of
the Central Government who were displaced from their offices
in Pakistan, according to the memorandum, had been absorbed
in offices under the control of the same administrative
ministry or on nomination by the Transfer Bureau of the
Ministry of Home Affairs in other offices. All those
persons had been appointed, with a few exceptions, on tem-
porary basis. The Ministry of ’Home Affairs accordingly
conveyed the following decision :
"It has now been decided in consultation with
the Federal Public Service Commission that the
question of seniority in each grade should
also be examined in the same context and
specific rules suitable for each service
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
prescribed in framing those instructions. The
question of seniority of Assistants in the
Secretariat was recently examined very
carefully in consultation with all the
Ministries and Federal Public Service Commis-
995
sion and the decisions reached are
incorporated in para 8 of the ’Instructions
for the initial constitution of the grade of
Assistants’ an extract of which is attached.
It has been decided that this rule should
generally be taken as the model in traming the
rules of seniority for other services and in
respect of persons employed in any particular
grade seniority should, as a general rule, be
determined on the basis of the length of
service in that Grade irrespective of whether
the latter was under the Central or Provincial
Government of India or Pakistan. It has been
found difficult to work on the basis of
’comparable’ posts or grades and it has there-
fore been decided that ’Service in an
equivalent Grade’, should, generally be
defined as service on a rate of pay higher
than the minimum of the time scale of the
grade concerned. The seniority of persons appoi
nted on permanent or quasi-permanent
basis before the 1st January, 1944 should,
however not be disturbed."
Direction was accordingly issued by the Ministry of Home
Affairs that the principles given in the Memorandum be borne
in mind in determining the seniority of ’Government servants
of various categories employed under the Ministry of
Finance, etc.’ On December 22, 1959 another Office
Memorandum was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on the
subject of the general principles for determining seniority
of various categories of persons employed in Central
services. Material part of this memorandum was as under:
"The instructions contained in this Ministry’s
Office Memorandum No. 30/44/48-Apptts, dated
the 22nd June, 1949, were issued in order to
safeguard the interests of displaced
Government servants appointed to the Central
Services after partition. As it was not
possible to regulate the seniority of only
displaced Government servants by giving them
credit for previous service, the instructions
were made applicable to all categories of
persons appointed to Central Services. The
principles contained in the 22nd June, 1949,
orders were extended to-
(i) ex-Government servants of Burma
appointed to Central Services; and
(ii) the employees of former part ’B’ States
taken over to the Centre as a result of
Federal Financial_ Integration.
996
The instructions contained in this Ministry’s
Office Memorandum No. 32/10/49-CS dated the
31st March-, 1950 and No. 32/49-CS(C), dated
the 20.h September, 1952 similarly regulate
the seniority of candidates with war service
appointed to the Central Services.
2. The question has been raised whether it
is necessary to continue to apply the in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
structions contained in the-Office Memoranda
cited above. Displaced Government servants
have by and large been absorbed in the various
Central Services and their seniority has been
fixed with reference to the previous service
rend--red by them. Similarly, the seniority
of ex-employees of the Government of Burma and
of Part ’B’ States as we I as of candidates
with war service has already been determined
in accordance with the instructions cited
above. As the specific objects underlying the
instruction is cited above have been
achieved, there is no longer any reason to
apply those instructions in preference to the
normal principles for determination of
seniority. It has, therefore, been decided in
consultation with the Union Public Se-vice
Commission, that hereafter the seniority of
all persons appointed to the various Central
Services after the date of these instructions
should be determined in accordance with the
General principles annexed hereto.
3. The instructions contained in the
various office memoranda cited in paragrah I
above are hereby cancelled, except in regard
to determination of seniority of persons
appointed to the various Central Services
prior to the date of this Office Memorandum.
The revised General principles embodied in the
Annexure will not apply with retrospective
effect, but will come into force with effect
from the date of issue of these ’orders,
unless a different date in respect of any
particulate service/ grade from which these
revised principles are to be adopted for
purposes of determining seniority has already
been or is hereafter agreed to by this
Ministry.’,
Relevant parts of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the
Annexure to this Memorandum were as under :
"2 Subject to the Provision of para 3 below,
persons appointed in a substantive or
officiating capacity to a grade prior to the
issue of these general principles shall retain
the relative seniority already assigned to
them or such seniority as may hereafter be
assigned to them under the existing orders
applicable to their cases
997
and shall en-bloc be senior to all others in
that grade.
3. Subject to the provisions of para 4
below, permanent officers of each grade shall
be ranked senior to persons who are
officiating in that grade.
4. Direct Recruits :
Notwithstanding the provisions of para 3
above, the relative seniority of all direct
recruits shall be determined by the order of
merit in which they are selected for such
appointment, on the recomendations of the
U.P.S.C. or other selecting authority, persons
appointed as a result of an earlier selection
being senior to those appointed as a result of
a subsequent selection.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
Ravi Varma, respondent No. 1 in civil appeal No. 1845 of
1968. was appointed as an Inspector in the Central Excise
Collectors in Madras on 27-5-47 and was confirmed on 7-4-56.
Ganapathi Kini respondent No. 1 in civil appeal No. 1846,
was appointed as an inspector in the Central Excise
Collectorate in Madras on 28-5-47. In view of the war
service rendered by Ganapathi Kini, his service for purposes
of seniority was computed with effect from 10-10-46 and he
was confirmed on 7-4-56. Ganapathi Kini and Ravi Varma
were shown at serial Nos. 115 and 141 in accordance with the
length of service in seniority list of inspectors prepared
in 1959. Subsequently on the directions of the Central
Board of Revenue contained in letter dated October 19, 1962,
a revised seniority list was prepared in 1963 by computing
seniority from the date, of conifirmation. In the revised
list Ganapathi Kini and Ravi Varma were shown at serial,
Nos. 149 and 150, junior to persons to whom they had been
shown senior in the earlier seniority list. Ganapathi Kini
and Ravi Varma thereupon filed petitions under article 226
of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the
revised seniority list prepared in 1963. The main ground
taken in the writ petitions was that the seniority should be
determined according to length of service in terms of Office
Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 of the Ministry of Home
Affairs. Impleaded in the writ petitions as respondents
were the Union of India, the Central Board of Revenue and
the Collector of Central Excise as also those inspectors of
Central Excise who, according to the petitioners, were
junior to them but who on account of being shown senior to
the petitioners in the revised seniority list, had been
appointed as Senior Grade Inspectors of Central Excise.
The above mentioned writ petitions were resisted by the
appellants. The learned judges of the Mysore High Court
referred to the memoranda dated June 22, 1949 and December
22, 1959
-L736SupCI/72
998
and held that the altered rule embodied in the Memorandum
dated December 22, 1959 for the determination of seniority
would be inapplicable to persons appointed before June 22,
1949 like Ganapathi Kini. Argument was advanced on behalf
of the appellants that on July 3, 1957 the Central Board of
Revenue had again adopted the rule that the date of the
confirmation should form the basis for determination of
seniority. This argument did not find favour with the
learned judges,and it was observed
"But what is however clear is that in the case
of a person like the petitioner who was
appointed before June 22, 1949 the rule made
by the Ministry of Home Affairs on that date
was what constituted the basis for the
determination of seniority and not the rule
which was revived by the Central Board of
Revenue on July 3, 1957."
Direction was accordingly issued that Ganapathi Kini’s
seniority should be determined on on basis of the formula
contained in the Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 and
the revised seniority list be rectified accordingly.
In the petition filed Ravi Varma the High Court made a short
order when, after-’referring the decision in the case of
Ganapathi Kini, the learned judges granted similar relief to
Ravi Varma.
Suresh Kumar, respondent No. 1 and Tara Chand Jain, res-
pondent No’ 2 in civil appeal No. 50 of 1969 were appointed
as Lower Division Clerks in the Medical Stores Depot, Karnal
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
under the Directorate General of High Services on October 9,
1950 and November 26 1951 respectively. Both of them were
con firmed on March 31, 1960. In the Seniority list which
was Prepared in accordance with Office Memorandum dated June
22, 1949 Suresh Kumar and Tara-Chand Jain, respondents, were
shown at serial Nos. 32 and 34 in accordance with their
length of Service. Subsequently Memorandum dated June 19,
1963 Was received from the Directorate General of Health
Services in which there was a reference to the Ministry of
Home Affairs office Memorandum date December 22, 1959.
It was stated in the Memorandum from the Directorate General
of Health Services that scheduled castes’ and scheduled
tribes candidates who were confirmed in reserved vacancies
would rank senior to temporary, including quasi-permanent
persons irrespective of their position in the seniority
list. A revised seniority list was thereafter prepared and
a number of scheduled castes candidates who had been
recruited later but had been confirmed earlier than Suresh
Kumar and Tara Chand Jain were shown senior. Suresh Kumar
and
999
Tara Chand Jain were thus shown at serial Nos. 40 and 42 in
the revised seniority list Suresh Kumar and Tara Chand Jain
thereafter filed petition tinder article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India for quashing the instructions
contained in the Memorandum dated June 19, 1963 issued by
the Directorate General of Health Services is well its the
revised seniority list and other consequential reliefs.
Impleaded is respondents in the petition were the Union or
India, the Director General of Health Services, the Deputy
Assistant Director General Medical Stores, as well astoother
schedule castes employees of the Medical Stores Depot
Karnal who had been shown senior to the petitioners in the
revised seniority list.
The above petitions were resisted by the appellants and were
dismissed by the learned single judge. On Letters Patent
appeal the judgment of the single judge was reversed and it
was held thatSuresh Kumar and Tara Chand Jain having been
appointed prior to December 22, 1959 were Governed by the
rule of seniority contained in the Office Memorandum dated
June 22, 1949 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
This position, in the opinionof the learned judges, was not
affected by the subsequent OfficeMemorandum issued by the
Ministry of Home Affairs. So far asthe Memorandum dated
June 19, 1963 issued by the Directorate General of Health
Services was concerned, it was found to be not in consonance
with the Office Memoranda issued by the Ministry of Home
Affairs on June 22, 1949 and December 22, 1959. Assuch
the Memorandum issued by the Directorate General of Health
Services, according to the learned judges, could not affect
the seniority of Suresh Kumar and Tara Chalid Jain. In the
result the revised seniority list was held to be invalid and
theUnion of India and two other appellants were directed
to prepare a revised seniority list in accordance with the
original seniority of Suresh Kumar and Tara Chand Jain.
The learned Solicitor General on behalf of the appellants
has at the outset referred to Memoranda dated June 22, 1949
and December 22, 1959 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs
and has argued that after the issue of the latter Memorandum
the seniority of all Central Government employees should be
determined by the date of their confirmation and not oil the
basis of the length of service. let this connection, we
find, that the of a large number of Government employees
After the partition of the country from areas now forming
part of Pakisthan resulted in a situation wherein the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
Government had to review the Jules relating to seniority, As
most of those displaced Government servants had been
employed on temporary, basis and as it was felt that they
should be given some weigh@age in the matter of seniority on
compassionate grounds, the rule was evolved that the
seniority
1000
should be determined on the basis of the length of service
in equivalent grades. The seniority of persons appointed on
permanent basis or quasi-permanent basis before January 1,
1944 was, however, left undisturbed. Further, as it was not
possible to regulate the seniority of only displaced
Government servants by giving them credit for previous
service, the instructions were made applicable to all
categories of persons appointed to Central services. Office
Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 was consequently issued. The
above principles were also extended to other category of
Government employees, including those with war service.
The matter was reviewed thereafter in 1959. The Government
then found that displaced Government servants had by and
large been absorbed in the various Central services and
their seniority had been fixed with reference to the
previous service rendered by them. Same was found to be the
position of other Government servants who had been given the
benefit of the principles contained in Memorandum dated June
22,.1949. As the objects underlying the instructions of June
22, 1949 had been achieved and it was no longer considered
necessary to apply those instructions in preference to the
normal principle for determination of seniority, it was
decided that the seniority of Central Government employees
would henceforth be determined in accordance with the
general principles contained in Annexure to the Office
Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on
December 22, 1959. One ,of those principles was that
permanent officiating of each grade would I ranked senior to
persons who were, officiating in that grade. The effect of
that, as submitted by the learned Solicitor General, was
that the seniority was to be determined by the date of
confirmation and not on the basis of length of service as
was the rule contained in the Office Memorandum dated June
22, 1949.
The Office Memorandum dated December 22, 1959, however,
expressly made it clear that the general principles embodied
in the Annexure thereto were not to have retrospective,
effect. In ,order to put the matter beyond any Pale of
controversy, it was mentioned that ’hereafter the seniority
of all persons appointed to the various Central Services
after the date of these instructions should be determined in accor
dance with the General principles annexed hereto’. It
is, therefore, manifest that except in certain cases with
which we are not concerned, the Office Memorandum dated
December 22, 1959 and the provisions laid down in the
Annexure thereto could not apply to persons appointed to the
various Central services before the date of that Memorandum.
It may also be mentioned that while dealing with the above
Memorandum, this Court in the case of Mervyn Coutindo & Ors.
1001
v. Collector of Customs, Bombay & Ors. (1) observed that
these principles were not to apply retrospectively but were
given effect to form the date of their issue, subject to
certain reservations with which we are not concerned.
It has next been argued by the learned Solicitor General
that whatever might be the positioned in respect of the
employees in other Central services, so far as the clerks,
supervisors and inspectors under the Central Board of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
Revenue were concerned, a decision was taken that for
purposes of promotion, the permanent employees should have
precedence before nonpermanent employees. Our attention in
this connection has been invited to letter dated March 15,
1958 sent by the Central Board of Revenue to all Collectors
of Central Excise. In this letter there was a reference to
an earlier letter dated July 3, 1957 from the Board and it
was mentioned that the instructions contained in the earlier
letter that for purposes of promotion from ministerial grade
to inspectors grade, permanent clerks would first be
considered before considering persons who were non-
permanent, should be followed in respect of promotions to
other grades also. The Solicitor General accordingly
contends that the direction contained in the Memorandum
dated December 22, 1959 that it could not apply to employees
appointed before that date would not hold good in the case
of clerks, supervisors and inspectors functioning under the
Central Board of Revenue. It is, in our opinion, not
necessary to go into this aspect of the matter because we
find that the Central Board of Revenue as per letter dated
August 27, 1971 addressed to all Collectors of Central
Excise, gave fresh instructions regarding the principles of
seniority. In this letter there was a reference to the
Office Memorandum dated December 22, 1959 issued by the
Ministry of Home Affairs and it was stated :
"In supersession of all previous orders on the
subject, it has now been decided that-in so
far as the nongazetted staff in the Central
Excise, Customs and Narcotics Departments and
other subordinate offices are conceded, the
seniority of persons appointed to various
posts and services after receipt of these
orders should be regulated in accordance with
the Ministry of Home Affairs O.Ms. referred to
above."
It would follow from the above that so far as the non-
gazetted staff 1 in the Central Excise, Customs and
Narcotics Departments and other subordinate offices of the
Central Board of Revenue are
(1) [1966]3 S.C.R. 600.
1002
concerned, the question of seniority would have to be
decided in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated
19-10-1959. As the said Office Memorandum has, except in
certain cases with which we are not concerned, applied the
rule of seniority contained in the Annexure thereto only to
employees appointed after the date of that Memorandum, there
is no escape from the conclusion that the seniority of
Ganapathi Kini and Ravi Varma, respondents, who were
appointed prior to December 22, 1959, would have to be
determined on the basis of their length of service in
accordance with Office Memorandum dated Julie 22, 1949 and
not on the basis of the date of their confirmation.
In civil appeal No. 50 of 1969 the learned Solicitor General
has referred to Office Memoranda dated January 28, 1952,
April 20, 1961 and March 27, 1963 issued by the Ministry of
Home Affairs to show a departure from the rule of seniority
for the benefit of members of scheduled castes and scheduled
tribes. Office Memorandum dated January 28, 1952 makes
provision for communal representation in services for
candidates to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes as also
the Anglo Indian community. The Memorandum gives a model
roster which should be applied in filling the vacancies.
Perusal of the Memorandum shows that it relates only to
recruitment and has nothing to do with the rule of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
seniority.
Office Memorandum dated April 20, 1961 deals with the ques-
tion of seniority of direct recruits who were confirmed in
an order different from the original order of merit.
According to the Memorandum, it often happens that a
scheduled caste or scheduled tribe candidate occupying a
lower position in the merit list is appointed permanently to
a reserved vacancy, while candidates above him in the merit
list are not appointed at that time. If such candidates are
appointed in the following year, they are note entitled to a
higher seniority on the ground that in the previous year
they had obtained a higher position in the merit list. It
is plain that the above Office Memorandum did not deal with
the question of seniority on the basis of length of service
as contained in Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 but
with the question a, to what would be the effect if a direct
recruit scheduled caste or scheduled tribe candidate though
occupying a lower position in the merit list, is confirmed
earlier in a reserved vacancy. We are in the present case
not concerned with any merit list nor with any question of
seniority based on such a list. As such, Office Memorandum
dated April 20, 1961 is also of not any material help to the
appellants. It may be stated that the counsel for the
appellants in the High Court conceded that the above
Memorandum had no direct relevance in the present
controversy.
1003
The third Office Memorandum dated March 27, 1963 referred to
by the learned solicitor General deals with the subject of
maintenance of roster for giving effect to the reservations
provided for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes’ in
Central Government services. This Memorandum has a bearing
only on the question of recruitment and provides no
guidelines for determining seniority. We, thus, find that
none of the three Office Memoranda relied upon by the
Solicitor General is of any material assistance to the
appellants.
We may now advert to the Memorandum dated June 19, 1963
issued by the Directorate General of Health Services. As?
mentioned earlier, it was after the receipt of this
Memorandum that the seniority list of class III employees of
the Government Medical Stores Depot, Karnal was revised and
the seniority was determined on the basis of the date of
confirmation and not on the basis of length of service. The
above Memorandum from the Directorate General of Health
Services expressly refers to the Office Memorandum dated
December 22, 1959 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and
seeks implementation of that. It is no doubt true that a
direction was given in the Memorandum of the Directorate
General of Health Services that scheduled caste and
scheduled tribe candidates confirmed in reserved vacancies
should be ranked senior to temporary, including quasi-
permanent persons, irrespective of their position in the
seniority list, but such a direction went beyond the rule of
seniority contained in the, Office Memorandum dated December
22, 1959 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in respect
of employees appointed before that date. As mentioned
earlier Office Memorandum dated December 22, 1959 did not
disturb the, seniority of Central Government employees who
had been appointed prior to the date of that Memorandum,
except in certain cases with which we are not concerned. It
is not disputed that according to the Government of India
Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 general questions
relating to recruitment, promotion and seniority in Central
services like the one with Which we are concerned, have to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
be dealt with by the Ministry of Home Affiars. As Suresh
Kumar and Tara Chand Jain, respondents, were appointed prior
to December 22, 1959 their seniority was governed by the
rule of length of service as contained in Office Memorandum
1004
dated June 22, 1949 and not by the rule based upon date of
confirmation as contained in the Annexure to the Memorandum
dated December 22, 1959.
Reference was made by the learned Solicitor General to the
case of Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India(1) wherein it
has been laid down that the service rules may be framed and
altered unilaterly by the Government. No occasion for
invoking the above dictum arises in this case because the
learned counsel for the contesting respondents have not
questioned the right of the Government to frame and alter
unilaterly the service rules.
In the result, all the three appeals fail, and are dismissed
with costs.
One hearing fee.
G.C. Appeals dismissed.
(1) [1968] 1 S.C.R. 185.
1005