EX. CAPT. K. BALASUBRAMANIAN ETC. versus ST ATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 845 · Decided: 14-03-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
EX. CAPT. K. BALASUBRAMANIAN ETC. 
v. 
ST ATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. ETC. 
MARCH 14, 1991 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 16-Tamil Nadu State 
~ and Subordinate Service Rules-Fixation of seniority-Benefit of mili-
, 
tary service to Emergency Commissioned Officers/Short .Service Regu-
lar Commissioned Officers-Given to Medical and Engineering 
Services-Not to those in non technical services-Whether arbitrary 
and discriminatory. 
Service Law: Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules: 
Rule 35-Fixation of seniority-Emergency Commissioned Officers/ 
Short Service Regular Commissioned Officers-On Re-employment in 
State Service-Non-Technical Service-Commercial Tax Officers-
Reckoning of seniority-Giving benefit of Military Service-Issue of 
administrative instructions-Validity of. 
The appellant/petitioners joined the Anny as Emergency Com-
missioned Officers in 1963 and were discharged during the years 1967 
A 
B 
c 
D 
to 1970. After their discharge they joined the Commercial Tax Service 
E 
).._ under the Respondent-State on selection by the State Public Service 
Commission. 
It was provided under R.35 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subor-
dinate Service Rules that their seniority in the department would be 
fixed in the order of preference indicated by the Service Commission p 
and not with reference to the service in the Armed Forces. 
\..;~,,--· 
However, in respect of similar candidates who were appointed as 
Assistant Surgeons, the Government order provided that their seniority 
would be fixed by allotting them the year in which they would have been 
appointed to the post at the first possible attempt after the date· of G 
joining military service/training. Thus, the concession of seniority 
reckoned with reference to date of appointment in the Anny, which has 
~ 
been extended to Asstt. Surgeons was denied to similar candidates 
.,..._,.selected to other services categorised as non-technical. 
On a suggestion made by the Public Service Commission, the H 
845 
A 
B 
c 
846 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991] 1 S.C.R. 
Respondent-State passed orders extending the benefit to the other "" 
services also. The Respondent-State further extended the benefit of 
fixation of seniority to all such candidates irrespective of their year of 
recruitment. The appointing authorities were directed to take steps to 
refix the seniority of such officials after issuing notice to all the affected 
parties. Accordingly notices were issued, and in response thereof rep-
resentations were received by the Respondent-State, which, after due 
consideration decided not to implement the orders extending the --"'\ 
benefits to other candidates in the non-technical category. 
Aggrieved by the said order issued on 3.8.1980 the affected 
persons filed Writ Petitions before the High Court. A Single Judge 
allowed the Writ Petitions holding that under orders dated November 
16, 1976 and June 15, 1977, which were passed on the recommendations 
of the Public Service Commission, the petitioners had acquired certain 
rights in the matter of seniority and promotion and since the Govern-
ment order dated 3.3.1980 took away the said rights of the petitioners, 
they should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing before pas-
D 
sing the said order. On appeal, the Division Bench set aside the judg-
ment of the Single Judge. . 
In the appeal and special leave petitions preferred against the said 
judgment it was contended that it was permissible for the State Govern-
-'-.., 
ment to i$sue administrative instructions with regard to determination 
E . of the seniority and to remove the lacuna which was found in the exist-
F 
G 
H 
ing rules, viz. discrimination between the Medical/Engineering service 
and other services. 
Dismissing the matters, this Court, 
HELD: L Although the Government cannot amend the statutory 
rules by Administrative instructions, if the rules are silent on any :x 
particular point, the Government can fill up the gaps and supplement 
the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already 
framed. In the instant case, it cannot be said that on the date of issue of 
orders dated November 16, 1976 and June 15, 1977, the rules were 
silent on the matter of fixation of seniority of persons recmited to the 
Tamil Nadu Commercial Tax Service. [852E-F) 
Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (1968] 1 SCR 
111; Union of India v. H.R. Patankar & Ors., [1985] 1

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