EX-CAPT. ASHOK KUMAR SAWHNEY versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 38 · Decided: 13-01-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.D. KOSHAL · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
n 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
EX-CAPT. ASHOK Kl1MAR SAWHNaY 
1'. 
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 
January 13, 1982 
[A.O. KOSHAL, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND R.B. MISRA, JI.] 
Re/eastd Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned 
Officers (Reservation of Vacancies) Rules, 1971, Rules 4(1), 6(3) and 8-Inter· 
Pretation of-'Recruitment'-Meaning of. 
./' 
ResPonC:ents Nos. 2 to 14 were appointed to the cadre of Income-tax Officers, 
Class I, against vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste and Schedules Tribes, as 
a result of a Competitive examination or test as envisaged by sub-rule (3) of 
Rule 6. The Petitioner was similarly appointed to the same cadre but against a 
vacancy reserved under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 for certain officers of the Armed 
Forces of the Union. He was placed in the imi::ugned seniority list below respon· 
dents Nos. 2 to 14. He made a representation against the seniority assigned to him 
on the ground tha~ under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 he was entitled to rank immedia-
tely below candidate~ appointed against unreserved vacancies. The representation 
was rejected by a letter dated 16th March, 1979. The petitioner filed a petition 
under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India s:eking the issuance of a writ quashing 
that letter. At the hearing it was not disputed that the petitio11er was entitled to the 
benefit o:f reservation sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 and to have his seniority determined 
in accordance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 6. However, it was contended on behalf 
of the respondents Nos. 2 to 14, inter alia, that the rules of the service had been 
amended earlier to 1971, so as to place candidates covered by sub-rule (1) of 
Rule 4 below those who had been appointed against reserved vacancies through 
a competititive examination. 
Accepting the petition, it was 
HELD : (1) Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 is not ambiguous in any manner what· 
soever and lays down in clear terms that the officers appointed against vacancies 
reserved under sub-rule.(I) of Rule 4 shall rank below candidates who were 
appointed against unre1erved VacanrieS in the Services concerned through a com. 
petiye examination, etc. [40 F-G] 
2. Respondents Nos. 2 to 14 have been appointed against vacancies 
reserved for Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes. Clearly therefore, they 
must rank below the petitioner inasmuch as it caanot be said with aay plausibility 
that they were appointed against unreserved vacancies. [41 A-BJ 
, 
3. The argument that the rules of the service in question had been amended 
to 1971, so as.to place candidates coverved by Rule 4(1) below those who bad 
been appointed to reserved vacancies through a competitive examination has no 
substance and makes no difference to tht iOterpretation which is-given above ·to 
+ 
_\ 
' 
A.It. SAWHNEY '· UNlON (Koshar, J.) 
39 
sub-rule (3) of Rule 6, Rule 8 of the Rules declares in no uncertain terms that 
all rules regulating the recruitment of persons to Central Civil Services and Posts, 
Class I, to which the Rules apply, shall be deemed to have been amended to the 
extent provided for in the Rules. Although the rules regulating the seniority of 
the petitiopers and respondents Nos. 2 to 14 were so amended earlier to 1971 as 
to assign to the petitioner seniority below respondents Nos 2 to 14, the situation 
is Wholly irrelevant to the present dispute because after the ameOdooent brought 
about by Rule 8 of the Rules, the members of the service to :which the contenting 
parties belong, have to be governed by 1he later amendment, of which sub-rule 
(3) of Rule 6 forms a part. This is the inescapable consequence fl.owing from 
Rule 8 of the Rules. [41 G-H, 42 A-DJ 
4. The word 'recruitment' is comprehensive enough to embrace the content 
of all the rules proceeding Rule 8 including the fitment of candidates recruited 
to the service vis-a-vis each other. [ 42 D-E] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1337 of 1979. 
(Under article 32 of the Constitution of India). ' 
A 
3 
c 
V.M. Tarkunde, P.H. Parekh and Hemani Sharma for the • D 
Petitioner. 
Abdul Khader, Girish Chandra and Miss A. Subhashini for the 
Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
KosHAL, J. The short question which falls for determination 
in this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India praying 
for the issuance of appropriate writs quashing the letter dated 16th 
of March, 1979, by which the representation made by the petitioner 
against the seniority assigned to him in the 

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