D.R. YADAV AND ANR. versus R.K. SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 18-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

D.R. Y ADAV AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
R.K. SINGH AND ANR. 
JULY 18, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 309 proviso-Service rules framed 
thereunder-Application of-Held: Rules framed thereunder applicable for a 
transitory period so long as statute or statutory rules governing the service C 
condition are not enacted-Once special rules framed it would prevail over 
the general rules. 
Service law-Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 
1991-U.P. Development Authorities Centralised Service Rules, 1985-
Seniority-Fixation of-Absorption of employees from different authorities in D 
Central Services-Appel/ant promoted on ad hoc basis against non existent 
post of Assistant Executive Engineer-Respondent provisionally promoted to 
the post of Assistant Engineer on reference basis-Absorption of appellants 
and respondent in the Central Services on the post of Assistant Engineer-
Inter se seniority dispute-For determination of seniority one rule being 
general rule-I 991 Rules and other being the special rule-I 985 Rules operating E 
in the field-High Court holding general rule-I 99 I Rules applicable-On 
appeal held: As appellants granted ad hoc promotion on non-existent posts, 
it would not confer any right of seniority-Once appellants absorbed with 
employees similarly situated, their inter se seniority would be governed by 
statutory rules-1985 Rules under which seniority is determined on the criteria F 
of continuous service rendered by employees 'on similar posts', the posts 
would be the ones legally created or borne on cadre, including service 
rendered in Development Authorit)', Nagar Mahapalika, Nagarpalika or 
Improvement Trust on similar posts-Post of Assistant Executive Engineer not 
being cadre post, appellants not working on a similar post for the purpose 
of Rule 7 of 1985 Ru/es-Hence Order of High Court upheld-Constitution G 
of India, 1950, Article 309 proviso. 
In terms ofU.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 Development 
Authority was constituted whereupon all posts borne on the development wing 
of other local bodies like Nagar Mahapalika or Municipal Corporation stood 
583 
rI 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A transferred. Development Authority then invited the applications for the post 
of Assistant Engineer (C). Appellants applied for the same. Appellant No. I 
was appointed on 9.11.1978 and Appellant No: 2 on 12.7.1979. Respondent 
No. I was appointed on 12.10.1976. In 1984, State Government created 
Developmeut Authorities Centralised Services and employees from different 
authorities were absorbed in Central Services. Respondent No. 1 was 
B provisionally promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on reference basis 
on 3.5.1986 whereas the appellants were promoted on non-existent post of 
Assistant Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis. Appellants and respondent No. 
1 were finally absorbed in the Centralised Service on the post of Assistant 
Engineers on 14.5.1987. State Government then issued a seniority list. 
C Dispute of inter se seniority arose between the appellants and the respondent. 
D 
At that time two rules were operating for determination of seniority, Uttar 
Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991-General Rule and U.P. 
Development Authorities Centralised Service Rules, 1985-Special Rules. 
High Court held that for the purpose of determination of inter se seniority 
1991 Rules shall apply. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellants contended that the High Court erred in applying 1991 Rules 
as it did not consider the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution that the 
Governor can frame a rule so long as the State or the concerned statutory 
authorities do not make any provisions laying down the conditions of service 
E by or under a statutory enactment; that once a legislation has come into being 
and rules have been framed governing the field, the general rules made by 
the Governor in terms of proviso to Article 309 must give way to special rules; 
and that as the appellants were absorbed in the centralized services, their 
seniority shall be determined in terms of Rule 7of1985 Rules. 
F 
Respondents contended that assuming that the special rules shall apply, 
the same would be ofnot much relevance as the seniority has to be determined 
in terms of sub-Rule (I) of Rule 7 of1985 Rules on the criteria of continuous 
length of service including the service rendered in a Development Authority, 
Nagar Mahap

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