CHANDRAMOHAN PANDURANG KAJBAJE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 187 · Decided: 07-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 187 
CHANDRAMOHAN PANDURANG KAJBAJE 
A 
't 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
(C.A. No. 6763 of 2001) 
JANUARY 7, 2008 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
... 
Service Law: 
Seniority- lnter-se seniority- Incumbents not appointed 
through Public Service Commission - Held: Cannot claim c 
seniority vis-a-vis those regularly and properly appointed 
through Commission, until their appointments are regularized 
by the appointing authority - On facts, direction issued by 
Supreme Court to State Government to revise inter-se 
seniority lists in terms of Government Resolution dated 1st D 
March, 1974 - Final inter-se seniority lists prepared in 
pursuance of such direction are valid. 
~ 
Judgment- Obiter dicta - Direction issued by Supreme 
Court- Held: Not to be treated as 'obiter dicta'. 
Direct recruitment to various ministerial posts in E 
Government offices in Greater Bombay is made on basis 
of competitive examinations held by the State Public 
Service Commission (PSC). During last several years, a 
number of candidates such as the Respondents, who had 
F 
not been selected by the PSC came to be recruited to the 
~ said posts, pending allotment of candidates selected by 
the PSC. Many of those persons. had put in many years 
of service. The question of regularization of appointment 
of those persons had been under the consideration of 
the Government for some time. 
G 
On 151 March, 19.74, the State Government passed a 
·~ 
Resolution directing that the non-PSC selected persons 
employed prior to 1st January, 1971 and in service on the 
date of issue of the said Resolution would continue in 
187 
H 
188 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A service, without being replaced by candidates selected 
,. 
' 
by PSC provided they had the minimum educational 
qualifications and were within the prescribed age-limit at 
the time of their initial appointment. On the issue of inter-
se seniority between PSC selected employees and non-
B PSC selected employees, the Resolution clarified that PSC 
selected candidates working prior to the date of the 
resolution would be treated as senior to the non-PSC 
selectees covered by the resolution. 
..... 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
c present appeal is whether the revised inter-se seniority 
lists subsequently published·on 5th March, 1997 and 25th 
March, 1997 were in pursuance to directions of this Court 
or not. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In service jurisprudence, the incumbent 
who did not belong to the stream of regularly and lawfully 
~ 
appointed through Public Service Commission cannot 
claim seniority vis-a-vis those who have been regularly 
E and properly appointed through the Commission, till the 
appointments have become regular and are regularized 
by the appointing authority as a result of which their 
stream joins the regular stream. [Para 11] [194-G-H; 195-A] 
1.2. The Government Resolution dated 1st March, 
F 1974 correctly treated the Public Service Commission 
J.... 
selected employees prior to the date of Resolution as 
senior to the non-P.S.C. selected employees. [Para 1 O] 
[194-F] 
G 
Shit/a Prasad Shukla v. State of UP & Ors, 1985 Supp. 
sec 185 - relied on. 
2.1. The Government Resolution of 1st March, 1974 
.,.. 
was dealt with by the Supreme Court in Makashi's case. 
The decision in Makasi's case was followed by a two-
H Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Kajbaje's case, in which 
CHANDRAMOHAN PANDURANG KAJBAJE v. 
189 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [H.K. SEMA, J.] 
~ 
f 
not only the decision in Makasi's case was referred to but A 
a direction was also issued to the State Government to 
revise the seniority lists in terms of the Resolution dated 
1st March, 1974 within four months' time. It is in pursuance 
of the said direction that final seniority lists were prepared 
on 6th March, 1997 and 26th March, 1997. [Paras 12, 13, 8 
14] [195-H; 197-C-E] 
..... 
2.2. The High Court failed to take note of the fact that 
'. a direction was issued by this Court. A direction issued 
by this Court cannot be treated as 'obiter dicta'. It appears 
that the High Court did not care to read the judgment of c 
Supreme Court in between the lines in Makasi's case 
followed by Kajbaje's case. This is where the High Court 
went wrong creating multiplicity of litigation instead of 
giving a quietus to the litigation. The final seniority lists, 
published on 6th March, 1997 and 26th March, 1997, are D 
validly made and in 

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