Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
H.L. RANDEV AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT01/11/1990
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
SAWANT, P.B.
SAWANT, P.B.
CITATION:
1990 SCR Supl. (2) 527 1991 SCC Supl. (1) 47
JT 1990 (4) 368 1990 SCALE (2)940
ACT:
Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963: Rules
2(2), 8 and 12--Fixation of seniority--Promotees and direct
recruits--Direct recruits appointed to vacancies in their
quota--Their seniority to commence from date of
appointment--Not on completion of probation.
HEADNOTE:
The appellants in this case were promotees while re-
spondents 2 to 12 were direct recruits, both belonging to
the Punjab Superior Judicial Service. Pursuant to the direc-
tions given by this Court in B.S. Yadav’s case (1981) 1 SCR
1024, the High Court prepared a provisional seniority list
and invited objections to the same. Since no objections were
received, the seniority list was finalised.
The appellants filed an application before this Hon’ble
Court for direction to the High Court to fix the seniority
correctly as per the decision in B.S. Yadav’s case. This
Court rejected the application, holding that it was wholly
misconceived as it purported to challenge the seniority list
on the ground that there was non-compliance of the direc-
tions of this Court. This Court gave liberty to the appel-
lants to move the High Court, and the appellants flied a
Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the seniori-
ty list. The High Court dismissed the same in limine.
Aggrieved, the appellants preferred the present appeal
contending inter alia that the seniority of respondents who
were appointed prior to the 1976 amendment 10 the Punjab
Superior Service Rules, 1963, could have been determined
only from the date of their confirmation; that the probation
of direct recruits being two years, their seniority would
count from the date they complete probation and not from
their dates of appointment; that the benefit of continuous
officiation under the amended Rules was denied to the appel-
lants, although they were also appointed prior to the amend-
ment of the Rules.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
528
HELD: 1.1 Under the definition of the "cadre post" as
per Rule 2 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules,
1963 prior to its amendment in 1976, the temporary posts did
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
not form part of the cadre. They became part of the cadre
only after the amendment. There was a quota of recruitment
between the promotees and directed recruits. Admittedly. the
appellants were not appointed in their quota. Hence till the
amendment of December 31, 1976, the appellants were not
members of the service and they were also not appointed to
the posts according to Rules. The appellants became members
of the service only after their appointment in the cadre
posts after 31st December, 1976. Hence, their seniority
under the amended Rules could not have been counted from any
date anterior to such appointments. As against this, the
respondent-direct recruits were appointed in the cadre posts
according to their quota. Under the amended RuleS, there-
fore, their seniority was rightly counted from the date Of
their appointment. [531G-H; 532A]
1.2 The seniority list prepared by the ‘High Court is
also not in conflict with the direction given by this Court.
Both the appellants and respondent-direct recruits were to
be confirmed with effect from the dates on which vacancies
became available to them in their respective quotas. Al-
though direct recruits completed their probation period
later, they were from the inception appointed in the vacan-
cies which were available to them in their quota. [532E-F]
B.S. Yadav and Ors. etc. v. State of Haryana and Ors.
etc., [1981] 1 SCR 1024, referred to.
2. ‘The argument that even if the seniority of the
appellants is to be reckoned from 1st January, 1977, i.e.,
the date immediately after coming into operation of the
amended Rules, some of the appellants would have become
senior to the direct recruits who were confirmed much later,
is deceptive, for while it seeks the application of the
amended Rules to the appellants, it denies their application
to the direct recruits. If according .to amended Rules, the
continuous officiation in service is to be counted only from
the date of appointment in the cadre post, then the direct .
recruits having been appointed in the cadre post, their
seniority will have also to be counted from their date of
appointment. So counted they will be senior to the appel-
lants. [532C-E]
JUDGMENT: