H.S.SIDHU versus DEVENDRA BAPNA & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 456 · Decided: 09-09-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 456 
H.S.SIDHU 
v. 
DEVENDRA BAPNA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6505-6506 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 09, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Service law- Seniority- Fixation of - Two Direct recruits-
C Assistant Directors, promoted to the post of Deputy Director 
- In the cadre, 1st respondent treated as senior to appellant 
-
Thereafter, for the post of Joint Director, Departmental 
Promotion Committee (DCP) placed appellant as senior to 
1st respondent- Both allowed to officiate as Joint Director-
D 
1st respondent challenged the determination of seniority in 
the cadre of Joint Director - During pendency, appellant 
promoted temporan"fy to officiate as Director - 1st respondent 
challenged the same - Single Judge held that 1st respondent 
should have been treated as senior to the appellant- Upheld 
E by the Division Bench - Held: DPC after due evaluation of 
the A CRs and consideration of the merit by ascribing reasons 
had prepared the merit list and found that the appellant had 
received more marks than 1st respondent - Neither the 
appellant nor 1st respondent were confirmed, thus, the rules 
F relating to seniority for confirmed employees not applicable 
- Proviso to r. 12(c) that if an officer has been selected for 
officiation from a list in which he is considered suitable for 
trial in a promotion and the said list has been arranged in 
order of merit, their inter se seniority would be determined in 
G accordance with the order of merit- In such a situation, when 
DPC had drawn the list on the basis of inter se merit, fixation 
of seniority could not be found fault with - High Court cannot 
sit in appeal over the assessment made by DPC -
H 
456 
H.S. SIDHU v. DEVENDRABAPNA& ORS. 
457 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 -Madhya Pradesh A 
Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 On a scrutiny of the ACRs, and the other 
materials, the DPC had found that the appellant had B 
received more marks than the 1st respondent. The DPC 
after due evaluation of the ACRs and consideration of 
the merit by ascribing reasons had prepared the merit 
list. Neither the appellant nor the 1st respondent was 
confirmed and, therefore, the rules relating to seni9rity C 
as far as the confirmed employees arc concerned, do 
not apply. The Rule 12(c) of the Madhya Pradesh 
Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 
which deals with seniority of Government Servant, 0 
applies. The proviso to Rule makes it quite vivid that if 
an officer has been selected for officiation from a list in 
which he is considered suitable for trial in a promotion 
and the said list has been arranged in order of merit, their 
inter se seniority shall be determined in accordance with E 
the order of merit. In such a situation, when the DPC had 
drawn the list on the basis of inter se merit, the fixation 
of seniority could not be found fault with. Further, while 
exercising the power under Article 226 of the 
Constitution, the High court cannot sit in appeal over F 
the assessment made by the DPC. [Para 10 and 13] [463-
C, 465-C-F] 
1.2 The first respondent retired holding the post of 
Director after a review DPC was directed to be held by G 
the Division Bench. He would be treated to have retired 
from the post of Director and would get the pensionary 
benefits. As far as the appellant is concerned, by virtue 
of the order passed by the Division Bench, he continued 
in the postof Director till 5.2.2010 and thereafter he was H 
reverted to the post of Joint Director. As he was already 
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A selected as a Director because of his seniority which was 
erroneously set aside by the High Court, the State 
Government is directed to pay the arrears of ~alary as 
·also the benefits of the post of Director. [Para 14] [466-
B 
c 
B-D] 
Union.of India v. S.P Nayyar2014 (6) SCR 116: (2014) 
14 sec - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2014 (6) SCR 116 
Referred to. 
Para 13 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
6505-6506 of 2009. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.03.2009 of the 
· High Court of Judicature, Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 411 of 
2008. 
E 
C.A. No. 7308 of 2009 
C.A. No. 7950 of2015 
WITH 
Subramaniam Prasad, Prashant Kumar, Joseph 
Pookkatt, Sunil Singh Parihar, (For AP & J Chambers), B.S. 
F Banthia, Mishra Saurabh for the Appellant. 
G 
H 
Aniruddha P. Mayee, A. Selvin Raja, Mishra Saurabh, 
Ankit Kumc

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