BISHAN CHAND & ORS. versus SARABJIT SINGH & ORS,

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 914 · Decided: 27-08-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

914 
, . 
' 
BISHAN CHAND & ORS. 
v. 
SARABJIT SINGH & ORS, 
August 27, 1974 
[A. N, RAY, CJ, AND K K MATHEW, J,j 
Punjab Co-operative .Subordinate Service· Rules, 1936, Rules 5, 6 and 7-
Passing of depart1nental, examination basis for fixation of seniority-~organi­
sation of Punjab State-Variation Of condition of service, if has the approval of 
the Central Govt. as required under sec. 115(7) of States Reorganisation Act. 
The appellants belonged to Pepsu Service, On 20th October, 1956 they held 
been prom.oted from the position of Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors. 
On 1 Nov., 
1956 there was the reorganisation of the State of Punjab. 
Pepsu became 
merged in Punjab. The appellants became integrated with other Inspectors 
working in the State of Punjab. 
Under the Punjab Co-operative Subordinate 
Service Rules, 
1936, seniority is dependent on the passing of departmental 
examination. All the respondents who were shown senior to the appellants in 
the gradation list dated 11 Marcil, 1966, had passed their departmental exami-
nation before the appellants passed their examination. The respondents were 
all confirmed earlier than the appellants. The appellants passed the departmen-
tal examination after the respond•:nts had done so. 
Therefore, the appellant~ 
A 
B 
c 
were treated as juniors to the respondents. 
[} 
The appellants contended that the conditions of service have been varied to 
their disadvantage without the previous approval of the Central Govt. as re-
quired under sec. 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act. 
Rejecting the appeal, 
' 
),, 
~ 
/. 
HELD : It follows from paragraphs 2. 3 and 6 of the memorandum of the 
Central Govt. dated 11 May, 1957 that as far as departmental examination i~ 
E 
concerned the Central Govt. told the State Governments that they might, if they 
so desired change the conditions of service 
and for this purpose th:::y might 
t 
assume the previous approval of the Central Govt. as required by the proviso· 
to sec. 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act. This Court has held that this 
memorandum of Central Govt. amounted to previous approval withln the 1n(!an· 
ing of sec. 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act. 
(917 B-D] 
N. Raghavendra Rao v. Deputy Co1nn1issiorier South Kanara Mangalore, 
(1964)7 S.C,R, 549 and Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors, v, Union of India & 
F 
Ors, [1975] 1 S,CR, 449 relied on, 
The condition of servii;e in regard to passing of departmental examination 
for the yurpose of promotion is. therefore, fully clothed with the previous ap· 
proval of the Central Govt. 
The appellants also appeared in the examination. 
They availed of the same method of promotion. 
They have suffered n:i pre-
judice 
because they passed 
the departmental 
examination 
later than 
the 
respondents, 
[917 Fl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuR•SDJCTION : Civil Appeal No, 1452 of 1973, 
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment & Order dated the 
8th September 1971 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in L.P, 
A. No. 689 of I 970, 
V. C, Ma/wJan, 
M. R, Agnifwtri and Urmi!a Sirur, for the 
appollants; 
R. K. Garg, S. C, Agarwa 'a, S, S, Bhatnagar and V, J. Francis, 
for respondents Nos, l, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 17. 
G 
H 
••
!;· 
li< 
•
-
.-;,; 
A 
R 
BISHAN V. SARABJIT (Ray. C.J.) 
O.P. Sharma, for R.N. Sachthey for respondent No. 11. 
T.V.S.N. Chari, for respondent (Davinder Bahr.dur). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
'915 
RAY, C.J.-This appeeJ is by special leave from the judgment 
dated 8 September, 1971 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. 
The principal question raisod in 
this appeal is whether 
the appellants are wrongly shown as junior to the respondents. 
The respondents have been treated to be senior to the appellants 
on the basis cf the Punjab Co-operative Subordinate Service Rules, 
1936 hereinafter referred to as the 1936 Rules. Under the 1936 
Rules seniority is dependent on the passing of departmental cxamina. 
tion. The appellants passed the departmental examination after 
the respondents had done so. Therefore, the appellants are treated 
as junior to the respondents. 
. 
The appellants belonged to Pepsu Senice. On 20 October, 1956, 
the appellants had been rromoted from the position of Sub-Irspectors 
D 
to Inspectors On l November, I 956 there was the reorganisation 
of the State of Punjab. Pcpsu became merged in Punjab. The 
appellants became integrated with other Inspectors working in the 
State of Punjab. 
On I March, 1957 the appellants were reverted.from the position 

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