K.A. ABDUL MAJEED versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 351 · Decided: 07-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
K.A. ABDUL MAJEED 
A 
V. 
THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 7, 2001 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Seniority-Advertisement issued for appointment of Lower Division Typist 
by Development Authority under its Byelaws-Appointment of appellant, who C 
possessed requisite qualifications, as Lower Division Typist and later promoted 
to Upper Division Typist-Disapproval of Byelaws by State Government 
subsequently-Power of appointment now vested with State Public Service 
Commission-Qualifications prescribed· by the Commission subsequently 
obtained by the appellant-Period counted for determination of seniority- D 
Held, initial appointment of appellant, who possessed requisite qualifications 
as per ,the advertisement, is regular-Initial appointment cannot be re-opened 
for altering his seniority ajier long lapse of the time-Authority to prepare 
fresh seniority list accordingly-Direction issued. 
Kera/a Subordinate Service Rules, 1958-Rule 27-App/ication of the E 
Rules for determination of seniority-Held, as per the Rules, the seniority of 
an employee is to be determined from date of first appointment unless he was 
reduced in rank as punishment or any period of service during probation. 
Pursuant to an advertisement issued by respondent-Authority for the 
post of Lower Division Typist, appellant, who fulfilled requisite qualifications, F 
was appointed for the post in 1981. He completed the period of probation 
satisfactorily. In 1983, the appellant was promoted to the post of Upper 
Division Typist and completed.two years of probation. Subsequently, during 
the period 1984-85, private respondent 4,5 and 6 were appointed as Lower 
Division Typists. In 1987, a provisional seniority list was published in which G 
the appellant was placed on top of the list. Respondent 4 filed a representation 
before the Authority claiming seniority over the appellant on the ground that 
the appointment of appellant was illegal as on the date of his appointment, 
the appellant was not qualified for the post. In 1988, the Authority revised 
the seniority list wherein the appellant was shown junior to the private 
351 
H 
352 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
respo~dents. The appellant filed a Writ Petition before High Court. The High 
Court dismissed the Writ Petition and the writ appeal. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that he had the requisite 
qualifications as per the advertisement issued by the respondent-Authority 
and on his application, he was duly appointed after selection; that he 
B successfully completed his period of probation both as Lower Division Typist 
and as Upper Division Typist; that after more than 7 years of his appointment, 
the respondent-State Government and the Authority cannot hold that the 
appointment of the appellant was irregular; and that the private respondents, 
who were appointed subsequently, have no legal right to question the initial 
C appointment of the appellant and, being juniors in terms of period of service, 
they cannot claim seniority over the appellant. 
The respondent-Authority contended that the initial appointment of the 
appellant to the post was irregular as the appointment was made under the 
Byelaws framed by the Authority and that the Byelaws were not approved 
D by the respondent-State Government; that the authority was not the 
appointing authority as the power of appointment for the posts was brought 
within the purview of the State Public Service Commission; that the appellant 
did not possess the desired qualifications prescribed by the Commission; that 
the Commission gave concurrence to the appellant's appointment only in 1990 
after the appellant obtained the requisite qualifications prescribed by the 
E Commission; that the seniority of the appellant has been fixed from 1990 and 
that he cannot claim seniority from the date of initial appointment; and since 
there is no Rules of the Authority regarding seniority of the employees, the 
State Subordinate Service Rules would apply and that the seniority has to be 
fixed in terms of Rule 27 of the said Rules. 
F 
The private respondents contended that the appointment of the 
G 
appellant was through back door whereas they were appointed through State 
Public Service Commissions and, therefores, the appellant cannot get seniority 
over them. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. It is an admitted position that the post was advertised by the 
responden

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