A. JANARDHANA versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 936 · Decided: 26-04-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
It 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A. JANARDHANA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
April 26, 1983 
[D.A. DESAI AND V. BALAKRJSHNA ERAD1, JJ.) 
Service Jurisprudence-Anomal!' in recruitnient Rules-Inter-se-seniority of 
Direct Recruits and promotees in the Military Engineer Services Class 1-
Seniority Lists drawn up in 1963 and 1967/68, on the principle of length of 
service-Continuous officiation, altered lo one b:ised on quota between direct 
recruits and promotees leading to rota for confirn1ation, tretaing many earlier 
promotees as surplus and out of the list-Validity of the revised 1974 inter-se 
Seniority List and the panal of p,.01notion prepared and published on January 13, 
1975, based thereon-Military Engineer Services, Class I, (Recruitn1ent Promotion 
and Seniority) Rules, 1949, which hecan1e statutory with effect from 1.2.69-Rules 3 
and 4 read with Rule 23 of Pait 111,para 3 of Appendix V and Army Instruction 
241of1950, scope of-Constitution of India, Article 14. 
• 
Appellant joined service as supervisor in the year 1953 in what is styled 
as Military Engineering Service. He can1e to be promoted as Assistant Execu~ 
tive Engineer in 1962. In the seniority list of AEE drawn up in the year 1963, 
he was shown at serial no. 357. In the seniority list of 1967, the appellant's 
name was found at serial no. 234. But as a result of- the decision in Bachan 
Singh's case, the Union GoverD.inent set aside the seniority lists of 1963 and 
1967/68 and drew up a fresh list on the criteria drawn fron1 the decision in 
Bachan Singh's case. In the seniority list so drawn, the appellant's name did 
·not find a place at all because he was pushed down, treating still as surplus, 
after applying the quota fron1 the date of the constitution of the service itself 
in 1951, applying the ratio of 9:1 between the direct recruits and the promotees. 
If he were to be treated as surplus in this manner the appellant cannot be 
adjusted and treated as a member till 1989 by which he may retire, of the 
service within the definition of that expression found in the Military Engineers 
Services Rules (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Rules 1949 as amended 
from time to time. The Union of India understood the decision in Bachan 
Singh's case to mean that there was a quota for recruitment in the cadre of 
AEE in MES Class I of9 direct recruits to one promotee (9:1) since 1951 and 
that the quota must lead to rota for confirmation and thus redrew the seniority 
list with the startling result of the appellant and several others similarly situ-
ated unable to get a berth at all. 
The appellant therefore, filed a writ petition no. 4293/79 questioning 
the validity and legality of the revised seniority list Ex. 'D' circulated with 
letter dated June 14, 1974 and to cancel the panel of promotion prepared and 
i;ommunicated in E,E.C's proceedings no. 65020/EE/74/EIR/dt January 13, 1975 
,-
\---._
-.-l 
A. lANAkDllAN V. tJNmN 
drawn up on the basis ofthe impugiled revised seniority list. The writ petition 
having been dismissed, the appellant has come up in· appeal' by special leave. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : !. The seniority lists of 1963 and 1967/68 were quite legal and 
valid and hold the field till 1969 having been drawn up on the basis of the 
principle which satisfies the test of Article 16. Their revision can be made in 
respect of members who joined service after 1969 and the period subsequent 
B 
to 1969. [963 E-FJ 
2:1 The seniority list "Ex. D" circulated with the letter dated June 4, 
1974 and the panel for promotion included in E-E-C's proceedings no. 65020/ 
EE/74/EIR dated January 13, 1975 drawn up on the basis of that list are in-
correct and sten1 
from a misunderstanding and misinterpretation or the 
Supreme Court's decision in Bachan Singh and Anr. v. Union oj· lnilia and Urs. 
(1972} 3 SCR 898. [905 H, 966 A-CJ 
2:2 There was no justification for redrawing the seniority iist In 1974 
affected persOns recruited or pro1noted prior to 1969 when the rules acquired 
statutory character. No doubt, it is open to the Government to prescribe 
princi_ples for determining inter-se seniority of Persons belonging to the same 
service or cadre except that any such principle must n1eet the test of Article 16. 
It is equally open to the Government to retrospectively revise s..:rvice rules, if 
the same does not adversely affect vesled rights. But if the rule for determining 
inter se seniority is revised or a fresh rule is fram

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.