LexDR. (MRS.) PUSHPA VISHNU KUMAR GURTU versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DR. (MRS.) PUSHPA v1SHNU KUMAR GURTU A ....._ v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. FEBRUARY 14, 1995 [P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.) B ICill~ Setvice Law: Seniority- fixation of-Notional Seniority-Conferred with reference to date of eligibility-P-erson not holding the post on such date-Mere eligibility-No ground to antedate seniority-Seniority list quashed. c The appellant was appointed as Reader in Government Medical College on 11.10.1977 and the respondent was appointed as Reader on 2.7. 1979 in Medical College under the Corporation. This medical college was taken over by the State Government on 1.4.1981. The State Government published a seniority list in which the respondent was shifted from serial D No. 20 to serial No. 11 and the date of her appointment was changed from I 2. 7 .1979 to 19 .1.1977. Subsequently she was promoted to the post of Prof es- sor on the basis of the aforesaid seniority list. The appellant filed a petition before the State Administrative E Tribunal challenging the alteration of the position of the respondent in the seniority list. The Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that the respondent was rightly given the benefit of continuous service rendered by her under the Corporation prior to the appointed day in terms of Rule 6 of G.R. of 1.i;l.1981. Hence this. appeal. F Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. Rule 6 of G.R. of 1.4.1981 says that seniority of persons --( in the posts in which they are absorbed shall be determined on the basis of the period of continuous service rendered by them in the corresponding G posts under the Corporation prior to the appointed day i.e. 1.4.1981. The second part of Rule 6 says that for the purpose of the said rule the service rendered iD the corresponding posts shall be counted "from the date from which the absorbed persons would have been eligible for appointment to the posts if the recruitment rules of Govt. then in force were to govern their ~ppointmrent". [61-B·CJ H 57 58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R. A 1.2. Factually, the respondent was promoted as Reader in the medical college under the Corporation on 2. 7 .1979. But a notional and fictional date of promotion as Reader for the purpose of her seniority has been given on the basis of the second part of Rule 6 w.e.f. 19.1.1977 saying that on that date she was eligible to be appointed as Reader having fulfilled the qualifications B prescribed for appointment. The second part of Rule 6 has not been read in its proper context and spirit either by the State Government or by the Tribunal. In the said Rule 6 emphasis is not on the eligibility for the post but on the "period of continuous service rendered by them in the cor- responding posts." In other words, the period for which the persons who are being absorbed had rendered continuous service in the corresponding post. C Out of such period only that period will be taken into consideration, since when the persons concerned, were eligible to be appointed under the recruit· ment rules of the Governm-int then in force. [62-E-G] 1.3. Rule 6 does not purport to give a~y notional or fictional seniority as a Reader. If his interpretation of Rule 6 is accepted the teachers of the D non-government medical colleges shall affect the seniority of the persons who had already been appointed as Readers in Government Medical Colleges. [63-B] Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of E Maharashtra and Ors., [19901 2 sec 715, followed. 2.1. It is not understood how any notional seniority could have been conferred by the State Government with reference to the date of eligibilty, although such person was not holding any such post either by direct recruit- ment or by promo.tion. In the. present case, there is no dispute that the F respondent never held the post of Registrar any time prior to 2.7.1979 when the college was under the Corporation. Hence her mere eligibility on 19.1.1977 to be appointed as Registrar, cannot be a ground to antedate her promotion as a Reader, so as to affect seniority of the appellant, who had been appointed as_a Reader in the Medical College on 11.10.1977. [63-E-F] G 2.2. The object of changing the date of seniority as Reader, so far as the respondent is concerned, appears to be to make her senior to the appellant. This benefit could not have been conferred on her, even if she was from the very bginning in any of the Governm
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.