DWARKA NATH SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 767 · Decided: 08-08-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~ :: 
,, 
DWARKA NATH SHARMA 
V.·, 
A 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
AUGUST 8, 1989 
_lRANGANATH MISRA.AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
B 
Civil Services: Military Engineering Servic,,_Seniority-Legiti-
mate claim to higher placement-Deprivation of-Whether justified. 
) 
Appellant joined the Military Engineering Service as Assistant 
".Execuitve Engineer, upon his selection by the Union Public Service 
Commission· through the combined Engineering Service Examination C 
held in 1960. He represented that his previous service in Central 
Government should be considered in fixing his seniority. In the senio-
rity list published, the appellant's name was shown at 483rd position. 
The appellant made a representation against the lower placement. 
Departmental Promotion Committee did not consider him for promo-
D 
lion because of the lower placement. Challenging the lower placement, 
the appellant flied a suit before the Civil Court which was dismissed. 
His first appeal before the District Judge as also the second appeal 
before the High Court met the same fate. 
This appeal, by special leave, is against the judgment of the High 
E 
Court. The respondents resisted the appeal on grounds of limitation 
and res-judicata. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: I. I.· There bas been no dispute in the Courts below, and 
F 
here too, that the appellant has been legally recruited to the service. 
The Union of India accepted the position that recrnitment thtough the 
Union Public Service Commission had been regularly made and the 
post was not a temporary one but as the perfomumce of the appel-
lant bad not been of a high order, he had been placed below treat-
ing him to be temporary-a position for which there is not much of G 
legal support. (7708-C, E, Fl 
1.2. Strictly speaking, Janardhana's decision may not have the 
effect of res-judicata for the present litigation, but in a dispute of the 
present dimension where hundreds of employees are concerned, it 
would not be proper for the employees to litigate over the same issne 
H 
767 
A 
B 
768 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 
from time to ti:ne. If it would be open to members of the service from 
time to time to raise disputes of the same nature and introduce uncer-
tainty into the service, that would affect the efficiency of the service and 
would be against public interest. Thal also would call into jeopardy the 
guarantees of public service and expose the ofrtcers into an atmosphere 
of insecurity. A seniority list of a cadre should not be made the suhject-
malter of debate too often. [77 IB-D] 
A. Janardhana v. Union of India & Ors., [1983] 3 SCC 601; 
affirmed. 
I 
c 
2. The plea of limitation raised by the respondents should not-/ 
have been upheld in the facts of the case. The seniority list was being 
changed from time lo lime. The appeUant had represented against the 
1967 seniority list. The dispute was already pending before this Court in 
Bachan Singh"s case. In fact, without waiting for the judgment of Ibis 
Court in that case, the plaintiff came to Court on 22.3.1971. The appel· 
Iant was entitled to make a representation againts the seniority list and 
D rejection of the representation actually would have given him the cause 
of action. In these circumstances, non-suiting him on the plea of limita-
tion would not al all be justified. [772E-G] 
Bachan Singh v. Union of India, [1972] 3 SCR 898, referred lo. 
E 
3. Individual claims, could not have been barred from considera-
tion if by the lime Janardhana's case came lo be disposed of, claims 
were pending adjudication before the Court. Appellaut's case was 
already before the High Court by the time Janardhana's appeal was 
disposed of by this Court. The stand taken by Respondent No. I that it 
was open to the appellant to appear in the competitive examination in 
F 
the succeeding year to better his position, is no justification for depriv· 
ing him of his legitimate claim to a higher placement in the seniority in 
the cadre. Appellant's position shall be shown below the recuirts of 
1960 and above those of 1961 and he may be bracketed with one who 
has been assigned that position and an appropriate rectification shall be 
made in the seniority list of 196 7 on the basis of the placement in terms 
G of this judgment. His entitlement to promotion on the basis of such 
position shall be considered by the respondents within four months 
hence. [7720; 773A-D] 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3224 
of 1989. 
From the Judgmen

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