BIMLESH TANWAR versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS .

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 757 · Decided: 10-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
BIMLESH TANWAR 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS . 
MARCH I 0, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.) 
B 
Service law: 
Rules Relating to the Appointment of Subordinate Judges in the Haryana 
Civil Service (Judicial Branch), 1951-Rules 1,8 and JO of Part D-lnter se C 
seniority between reserved category candidate and general category 
candidate-Determination of-Whether to be on merit or on the basis of roster 
point-Held, seniority is to be determined on the basis of merit and not on the 
basis of roster points-Seniority on the basis of roster points is to be fixed 
where there are different sources of recruitment to a service and quota of D 
appointment for each source of recruitment is fixed under the rules -Constitution 
of India, 1950-Article 235. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 16(4)-Scope of-It is to provide 
a representation of class of citizenry who are socially or economically 
backward-It is not for fixation of seniority. 
E 
A competitive examination was held for appointment to 28 posts of 
subordinate Judges. 11 vacancies were for general category and 17 
vacancies were reserved. The result was declared on 15.9.1989. 42 
candidates were declared qualified in the select list. 32 among them were 
from general category and 10 were from reserved category, thus leaving F 
7 reserved vacancies unfilled. The select list was for the existing vacancies 
and also the vacancies which were anticipated to ari~e during the period 
of 2 years from the date of publication of the result. High Court dereserved 
the unfilled reserved vacancies to general category, thus raising the 
vacancy in general category from 11 to 18. Respondent Nos. 8 to 11, 
candidates of general category, who were placed at serial Nos. 14, 15, 16 
and 18 respectively in the select list, were appointed at later dates, after 
litigation. 
Representations were made by the judicial officers for determination 
G 
of their inter se seniority and the matter was considered by a sub- H 
757 
758 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003) 2 S.C.R. 
A committee which opined that seniority would be determined as per merit 
and not on the basis of respective dates of appointment of the candidates. 
The recommendations of the sub-committee were accepted by Full Court 
of High Court by adopting a resolution in that behalf. Aggrieved thereby, 
appellant herein- a reserVed category candidate, filed writ petition which 
B was dismissed by High Court. 
c 
In appeal to this court appellant contented that the vacancies in the 
reserved categories had to be filled up in accordance with the roster 
points, and hence, no general category candidate would have been 
appointed against such vacancies. 
Respondent contented that inter se seniority was rightly determined 
on the basis of merit; that having regard to the instructions issued by 
Haryana Government in its Circular dated 27.04.1972, roster points can 
not be considered as seniority points; and that since these instructions 
have been followed by High Court for a long time, there is no reason to 
D deviate from such practice. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Rules 1,8 and JO of Part D of Rules relating to the 
Appointment of Subordinate Judges in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial 
· E Branch), 1951 lay emphasis on merit. It for all intent and purport excludes 
the applicability of rule of appointment in terms of roster points. 
(768-C-D) 
Chairman, Puri Gramya Bank and Anr. v. Ananda Chandra Das and 
Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 301; Pilla Sitaram Patrudu and Ors. v. Union of India 
F and Ors., (1996] !! SCC 637; Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 
SCC 268 and Ajit Singh and Ors. (II) v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1999) 7 
sec 209, relied on. 
G 
P.S. Gha/aut v. State of Haryana and Ors., (1995( 5 sec 625, 
overruled. 
A.I.I.MS. Students' Union v. A.J.I.MS. and Ors., [2002( 1 sec 428; 
K. Duraisamy and Anr. v. State of T.N. and Ors., [2002[ 2 SCC 538; State 
of Haryana v. Raj iv Kumar, C.A. Nos. 4426-28 of 1994 decided by Supreme 
Court and Kamal Kant and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., [1991) 3 
H Recent Services Judgments, referred to. 
t. -
.. 
~. 
BIMLESH TANW AR v. STA TE 
759 
2. In the absence of rules governing seniority, an executive order A 
may be issued to fill up the gap. Only in the absence of a rule of executive 
instructions, the court may have to evolve a fair and just principle which 
could be applied in the facts and circumstances of the case. (776-D) 
3. Senio

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