ARVINDER SINGH BAINS versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 886 · Decided: 24-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
ARVINDER SINGH BAINS 
V. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
MAY 24, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) (Class I) Rules,1976-Rules 
I 8and21---Seniority---lnter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees-
Joint requisition for promotees as well as direct recruits by the State--
Consolidated recommendation by Public Service Commission for recruitment 
of both-Jn-service candidates appointed prior to the direct recruits--
Seniority determined in order of their appointment-Seniority List challenged 
by direct recruits-Claiming the same to be fv:ed by applying roster--
Dismissal of claim by Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court-On 
appeal, held: The seniority could not have been determined from the date 
of appointment-The act of the state was in disregard of rota-quota 
prescribed in Rue 18 of the Rules. 
The appellant was one of the direct recruits to the PCS and the 
dispute is regarding their seniority vis-ii-vis recruits from other sources. 
Both the batches arose out of posts of 1978 to 1982 as per requisitions 
sent by the Government to the public Service Commission. In the 
requisition 50% of the posts were meant for direct recruits (Register B) 
F 
and remaining 50% were meant for promotees/in-service candidates 
(Registers A-1, A-11, A-III and C). The Commission made consolidated 
recommendations in respect of the candidates on two different dates. 
The in-service candidates were appointed in 1984 while the direct 
recruits were appointed in 1986. Seniority List of the direct recruits was 
G 
H 
prepared without assigning their places in the consolidated seniority of 
the cadre. Appellant filed Writ Petition before High Court claiming that 
the inter-se seniority of the 80 candidates (40 direct recruits and 40 
promotee) should be fixed by applying roster provided fJr in* rule 18 
Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976 by reading Rules 
18 and 21 together. High Court dismissed the Writ Petition holding that 
determination of seniority of members of the service would be in order 
886 
AR VIND ER SINGH BAINS v. STATE 
887 
of their appointment irrespective of the Register from which they were 
A 
appointed. Letter Patent Appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed 
by Division Bench of High Court Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The action of the State is contrary to Punjab Civil 
Services (Executive Branch) (Class I) Rules, 1976. The seniority under 
the 1976-Rules must be based on a collective interpretation of Rule 18 
and Rule 21 of the 1976-Rules. The acti<in of the authorities is negation 
of Rule 18 of the 1976-Rules in determining the seniority by the 
impugned order. [917-A-C] 
2. Actual appointment is by virtue of Rule 18of1976 Rules which 
says that first and thereafter every alternative vacancy shall be filled 
up by Register-B candidates. This position is also fortified by Rule 24(5)-
(Un-amended), the plain reading of which reveals that reference point 
is once again candidate from Register-B. Government has also admitted 
that direct recruits have precedence over others. Such precedence has 
to be reflected in the matter of seniority also. Even otherwise the direct 
recruits can never be senior to promotees if date of appointment is made 
B 
c 
D 
the sole criterion in determining the seniority as their process of 
selection is always lengthier than the promotees. It is in view of this, and 
E 
to rule out any discrimination/arbitrariness that the Roster under Rule 
18 has been prescribed which has to be read with Rule 21 in determining 
the seniority. Making date of joining as the basis of determining 
seniority would have led to discretion in the hands of the Government 
and there would have been a possibility of misuse. It is to avoid this that 
F 
a Roster has been prescribed in the Rules for fixing seniority. It is 
mandatory to apply Rota and Quota in determining seniority where the 
same is provided for under the rules. [903-G-H, 904-A-D] 
Prafulla Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors., [2003) 11 
SCC 614 and Mervyn Coutindo and Ors. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay 
G 
and Ors., [1966) 3 SCR 600, followed. 
Gonal Bihimappa v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (1987) SCC 207 
and Devendra Prasad Sharma v. State of Mizoram and Ors., [1997) 4 SCC 
422, relied on. 
H 
888 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Ajit Kumar Rath v. State

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