BHEY RAM AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus THE HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 219 · Decided: 08-09-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

BHEY RAM AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
THE HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 8, 1993 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Secvice Law-Seniority-Haryana State Electricity Board-Assistant 
EngineersClass II-Appointment by same process at different times-Mode of 
detennination of senioril).-Held date of entering service is relevant-Persons C 
appointed first shall rank senior to those who_ entered service later. 
Pursuant to an advertisement dated June 30, 1967 of the Haryana 
State. Electricity Board, the appellants were selected and appointed as 
Assistant Engineers Class II on April 18, 1969 with effect from January 1, D 
1969 after completion of training in terms of the advertisement and the 
offer of appointment. 
Pursuant to another advertisement of the Board dated July 14, 1968 
Respondent Nos. 2 to 29 were selected and appointed as Assistant En· 
gineers Class II between October and December, 1968 i.e. prior to the E 
appointment of appellants. Out of these respondents, Respondent Nos. 6, 
16, 17 and 28 were also appointed prior to the appointment of appellants. 
However, they joined later but before the appointment date of appellants. 
Since the respondents were appointed prior to appointment of the appel· 
lants they were shown senior to the appellants in the seniority list. The f 
appellants filed a writ before the High Court, claiming seniority over 
Respondent Nos. 2 to 29 which was dismissed. The appeal filed by them 
was also dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants 
that as at had been stated in the advertisement that they had to undergo G 
apprenticeship for a period of six months, after expiry of that period they 
should have been appointed as Assistant Engineers Class II. It was urged 
that if they had been appointed as Assistant Engineers Class II just after 
the expiry of the period of six months of apprenticeship, they would have 
ranked senior to the respondents. 
H 
219 
220 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
B 
HELD : J • While determining the inter se seniority amongest officers 
recruited from lifferent sources or between officers appointed by the same 
process at different times, the date of entering in the service is relevant. A 
person who enters in the service first shall rank senior unless there is some 
Rule providing otherwise which can be held to be consistent with Articles 
14 and 16 of the Constitution. (223-C) 
N.K Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. (1977) S.C. 251; Paramjit 
Singh v. Rakha Nat, A.I.R. (1983) S.C. 314; A. Janardhana v. Union of India, 
C A.I.R. (1983) S.C. 769; A.N. Pathak v. Secy. to the Govt. Ministry of Defence, 
A.I.R. (1987) S.C. 716 and Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' As-
sociation v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 S.C.C. 715, referred to. 
2. The respondents shall rank senior to the appellants, as they 
entered in the cadre of Assistant Engineers Class II of the Board before the 
D appellants. [223-F) 
3.1. While determining the seniority of an officer, the date of bis 
appointment is more important factor than the date of his joining. In many 
compelling circumstances like accident, the distance at which a particular 
candidate resides and the time taken by him to join, cannot be ignored. 
E 
[222-HJ 
3.2. In the instant case, Respondent Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 28 were not 
only appointed before the appellants but they joined also before April 18, 
1969 the date of the appointment of the appellants. The notional seniority 
given to the appellants with effect from 1.1.1969 cannot affect the seniority 
F 
of even respondent Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 28. [223-A] 
4. While challenging the seniority list the appellants cannot make a 
grievance in respect of the period of apprenticeship which was specifically 
mentioned in the advertisement and in the offer of appointment. If the 
appellants were required to undergo apprenticeship for a period exceeding 
G six months, no injustice bas been done to them and that cannot be a ground 
for questioning the seniority list. [224-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4152 of 
1983. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.10.82 of the Punjab and 
\ 
) 
BHEY RAM v. H.S.E.B. (N.P. SINGH, J.] 
221 
Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 1098/82. 
A 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 4153 of 1983. 
AND 
B 
Civil Appeal No. 3630 of 1993. 
O.P. Malhotra and D.B. Vohra for the appellants. 
Arun Jaitley, Pramod Da
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.