BALESHWAR PASWAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 948 · Decided: 16-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
BALESHWAR PASWAN AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 16, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Service Law-Seniority-Appointment in different cadres either on 
the basis of competitive examination or though other sources-Decision 
taken to merge cadres-Appellants appointed as Assistants on the basis of 
C a test conducted by the office of the Advocate General-Assistants 
appointed on the basis of competitive examination shown senior to 
appellants-Seniority list upheld by High Court in writ petition filed by 
appellants-Held, there can be no difference between sets of employees, 
who had been recruited by the office of the Advpcate General and those 
recruited from other sources-View taken by High Court on the basis of 
D a Government Circular, constitutional validity of which had been upheld 
and affirmed by this Court, cannot be faulted with at all. 
Appellants were appointed as Assistants on the basis. of a test 
conducted by the office of the Advocate General, Bihar. Assistants 
E were also appointed in the Secretariat through a previous general 
competitive examination. The Government decide~ to merge both 
these cadres and all Assistants recruited through the competitive 
examination were to rank senior to Assistants appointed through other 
sources. Later on, the office of the Advocate General merged with the 
F office of the Department of Law, Government of Bihar. The appellants 
were considered appointed through other sources, therefore, shown 
junior to Assistants appointed through the general competitive exami-
nation. High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by tliem upholding 
the seniority list. Hence this appeal. 
G 
Appellants contended that all persons should have been placed in 
the same category and inter se seniority ought to have been fixed on 
the basis of their date of joining the service. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD : I. In principle, there cannot be any difference between 
948 
BALESHWAR PASWAN v. STATE [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 
949 
these two sets of employees who had been recruited from other sources A 
and recruited by the office of the Advocate General. The view taken 
by the High Court that the seniority of the appellants who have been 
recruited from other sources vis-a-vis those appointed on the basis of 
the general competitive examination must be determined by applying 
the principles laid down in the Government Circular dated 30.3.1981, B 
constitutional validity of which had been upheld by the High Court and 
as affirmed by this Court, cannot be faulted. (951-C-E) 
Uday Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (1994} Supp. 
3 sec 451, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3617 of 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.4.1999 of the Patna High 
Court in CWJC No. 5313 of 1994. 
P.S. Misra and Amrendra Sharan, Kumar Rajesh Singh, Sujit Kumar 
Singh, Pawan Upadhyay, Vishnu Sharma, S.B. Upadhyay, Amit Kumar, 
Shrish Kumar Mishra and Irshad Ahmad for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
D 
E 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. : The ~ppellants before us participated in a 
test conducted by the Office of Advocate General, Bihar between 1975 and 
1985 and they were appointed as Assistants. Pursuant to the general 
competitive examination, recruitment had taken place to the Secretariat of F 
the Government of Bihar and when the question of merger of the two 
cadres arose, the Government took a decision on 14.8.1987 that all the 
Assistants who have been recruited through general competitive examina-
tion would rank senior to the Assistants who have not been appointed 
through general competitive examination but through other sources, while, 
of course, protecting their inter se seniority. 
G 
By an order made on 21. 7.1991, the Government of Bihar decided 
that the office of Advocate General, would stand attached to the office of 
the Law Depa1tment of the Government of Bihar. When the question of 
merger of the two Departments arose, the Government followed Rule H 
950 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A l 4(2)(gha) that inter se seniority of the candidates appointed on the basis 
of the competitive examination and those appointed through other sources 
shall be determined on the basis that those appointed pursuant to the 
competitive examination shall rank senior and the posit!on will be deter-
mined on the. basis of the date of being put on probation below all 
B successful candidates appo

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