G.C. GUPTA & ORS. versus N.K. PANDEY & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 185 · Decided: 08-12-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

)-._ . 
-
.... 
( 
.... ' 
G.C. GUPTA & ORS. 
v. 
N.K. PANDEY & ORS. 
APRIL 30, 1987, DECEMBER 8, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads 
Branch) Class II Rules 1936: Rules 3(b), 5(ii), 17 and 13-
A 
B 
Engineers-Seniority and promotion-'Member of service'-Who 
is-Seniority to be determined from date employee becomes 'member 
C 
of service'. 
Constitution of India 1950: Articles 226 and 136-Service 
matters-Inordinate and· unexplained delay-Relief not to be gran-
ted-Division Bench deciding that case was barred by /aches and 
D 
delay-Such decision cannot be reversed by another Division Bench 
of same High Court treating the matier as res integra-Doctrine of 
stare decisis-Applicability of. 
From the year 1942-43, two vacancies in the United Provinces 
Service of Engineers, both in the Buildings and Roads as well as in 
E 
the Irrigation Department, were reserved for students of the 
Thomson College of Civil Engineering, Roorkee who stood first and 
second in order of merit in the final examination of the degree 
course_ These two guaranteed posts were reserved by a Notification 
dated August 31, 1942 issued by the then Provincial Government F 
under Rule 6 of the United Provinces of Engineers Buildings and 
Roads Branch Class II Rules, 1936. This reserved quota of two 
guaranteed posts was later on increased by the Government to four 
posts each year in each of the two branches. This system of direct 
recruitment of merit scholars was, however, discontinued by another 
Notification dated June 22, 1950. 
G 
By a G.O. dated April 19, 1950 the State Government settled 
the principle that persons appointed to the guaranteed posts every 
year as Engineer students would take their seniority over persons 
appointed as temporary Assistant Engineers in that year. By a subse-
H 
185 
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1988] 2 S.C.R. 
• 
A 
quent G.O. dated June 22, 1950 the Government intimated the Chief 
)--.
Engineer, Building and Roads, that engineer students who were 
appointed to the guaranteed posts of temporary Assistant Engineers 
' 
and working in the Buildings and Roads Branch be absorbed. In the 
existing permanent vacancies or those which might arise in the 
B 
future. By an Office Memorandum dated December 7, 1961 the State 
Government brought a change in the method of recruitment of 
Assistant Engineers in the U .P. Service of Engineers Building and 
) 
Roads Branch, i.e. direct recruitment by competitive examination 
through a Public Service Commission from the year 1961. 
c 
The respondents in the appeal (petitioners in the writ petition) .. J, .
were initially appointed as temporary Assistant Engineers in the U .P. 
Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) by the Chief 
,,I,
Engineer, PWD between 1947-48 subject to the final approval of the 
Government. These were subsequently approved by the Government 
.. 
D 
during 1948-49 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5(i) of the 
Rules. Thereafter, on January 20, 1950 the Government in consul-
tation with the Public Service Commission confirmed these provi-
sional appointments and these respondents also passed the requisite 
test held by the Government. They were confirmed as permanent 
E 
Assistant Engineers in permanent posts in the cadre during 1956-58 
and the date of their confirmation was fIXed as April 1, 1956. 
1
The appellants in the appeal (respondent Nos. 3-5 and 7 in the 
lr 
writ petition) were appointed between 1951-52 as temporary Assis-
taut Engineers against the guaranteed posts and after completion of 
F 
the probationary period were confirmed in 1955, vide Gazette Notifi-
-• 
cation dated October 11, 1955. 
.,, 
I 
Seniority of Appellants 1 to 4 was fixed earlier from April 1, 
1955 whereas seniority of Respondents 1 to 12 was fixed below them· 
from 1956 treating the date of confirmation in the service as the date 
G 
of their becoming members of the se~vice. 
.. .. 
The respondents filed representations before the Government 
,;,. 
in 1959-60 for re-determination of the confirmation as well as conse· 
quential determination of seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis the 
H 
respondents. Their· claim was they having been appointed as Assis-
G.C. GUPTA v. N.K. PANDEY 
187 
..... 
tant Engineers, though temporarily, they became 'members of the 
A 
Service' earlier than the appellants and as such they were entitled to 
> , 
be placed above the appellants in the seniority list. In 1960

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