A.K. BHATNAGAR AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 638 · Decided: 09-11-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
A.K. BHATNAGAR AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 9, 1990 
[RANGANATH MISRA_, CJ, M.M. PUNCHi-II AND 
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Central Information Service Rules, 
!959-Rule 5-Direct 
Recruits-Inter se seniority-Fixation of. 
C 
Respondent no, 1 in the Civil Appeal of 1985, nioved the High 
Court in a writ to consider his case for promotion to Grade II and 
Grade I of the Central Information Service in the existing vacancies 
arising subsequent to 1964 by taking into consideration the period of his 
ad hoc service from the year 1964, and challenging the direction in the 
Government order requiring the regularised employees to be placed 
D bet.iw the regular recruits upto 1970 on the basis of that year's exami· 
nation. The Union Government opposed the claim. 
The Single Judge held that lhe officiating service would not be 
ignored once regularisation was made and directed the period of ad hoc 
service to be taken into account. The Division Bench affirmed the 
E 
decision. 
The appellant in the C.A. of 1985 challenged the High Court's 
decision, and the appellants in the two Civil Appeals challenged the 
judgments of CAT which followed the High Court's decision. The writ 
petition under Article 32 was by 29 employees whose services were 
F 
regularised. 
Dismissing the Writ Petition and allowing the Civil Appeals, this 
Court, 
HELD: 1. Seniority is an incidence of service and where the 
G 
service rules prescribe the method of its computation, it is squarely 
governed by such rules. In the absence of a provision ordinarily the 
length of service is taken into account. A dispute of such nature nor-
mally arises between recruits from two sources, namely direct and 
promotees. [642C-D] 
H 
2. Reliance on the ratio of cases where disputes of inter se senio-
638 
: 
' 
.I 
_, 
A.K. BHATNAGAR v. U.0.1. 
639 
rity between direct recruits and promotees on the basis of officers of one 
category manning the posts meant for the other category should not have 
been relied upon for determining a dispute of the nature that arose in 
these cases. Since rules are clear and the Government action was 
within the purview of the rules, jndicial interference was not called 
for. [ 642 G-H] 
3. When there is a dermite rule dealing with seniority and they 
had subjected themselves to that process, their seniority in terms of the 
rules had to he regulated according to the merits of the respective lists 
in the years when the examinations were held. [643D] 
4. The Union and the State Governments once frame the rules, 
their action, in respect of matters covered by the rules, shonld be 
regulated by the rules. The rules framed in exercise of powers conferred 
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are solemn rules 
having binding effect. Acting in a manner contrary to the rules does 
create problem and dislocation. Very often Government themselves get 
trapped on account of their own mistakes or actions in excess of what is 
provided in the rules. Court takes serious view of these lapses and hopes 
and trusts that the Government both at the Centre and in the States 
would take note of this position and refrain from acting in a manner not 
contemplated by their own rules. [643F-G I 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 12874of 1985. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos. 4232 of· 1985 and Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 3702 of 1988 and Civil Appeal Nos. 986 and 987 of 1988, C.M.P. 
No. 14054 of 1989 in Civil Appeal No, 986 of 1988 and I.A. No. 2 and 
3. 
V.M.Tarkunde, N. Kumar, V.C. Mahajan, M.C. Bhandare, P. 
Chidambaram, A.S. Nambiar. S. Markandeya, W.A. Nomani. G. 
Seshagari Rao, Ms.C. Markandeya, Ejaz Maqbool, M.D. Adkar, 
H.S. Anand, R.P. Srivastava, P. Parmeshwaran, S.C. Patel, Ms. A. 
Subhashini, A.K. Srivastava, M.S. Ganesh, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, 
Ms. Sushma Suri, B.K. Prasad, V.J. Francis, P.K. Manohar, B.S .. 
Charya, V.K .. Verma, Qamaruddin and Smt. Shanta Vasudevan for 
the appearing parties. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
640 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
,...
1
A 
Ra jendra Roy and P. Kashyap appeared in person. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATH MISRA, CJ. The Civil Appeals are by special 
leave and the writ petition is under Article 32 of the Constitution. The 
B 
Civil Appeal of 1985 is directed against an affirming Division Bench 
decision of the Madras High Court dated 16.8.84 in a writ appeal while 
the two other Civil Appeals

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