K.DHEENADHAYALAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 777 · Decided: 22-04-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
• 
-~ 
.. 
• 
777 
K.DHEENADHAYALAN 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
April 22, 1980 
[R. S. SARKAR!A AND R. S. PATIIAK, JJ.J 
Seniority List-Fresh lnter-se seniority list drawn as 
per 
the 
principles 
indicated by the liigh Court and according to the soecial Rules for Tamil Nadu 
Commercial Taxes· Service-Petitioner not a party before the 
Iligh 
Court's 
proceedings-Whether directions would bind the petitioner-The power of the 
High Court to fill up the lacuna in an order assailed. 
Under the· Special Rules of the Tamil Nadu Commercial 
Taxes 
Service, 
recruitment to the junior most post, Joint Commercial Tax Officer is made by 
direct recn1itn1ent and recruitment by transfer from Deputy Conlffiercial 
Tax 
Officers in the State Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services in the proportion 
I : 2. 
The higher posts are filled by promotion from officers in the category 
of posts immediately below. 
Under Rule 2 (b) all promotions are to be made 
on the grounds of merit and ability, seriiority being considered \Vhere merit and 
ability are equal. 
Rule 5(c) provides that every person appointed as a Joint 
Commercial Tax Officer must be on probation for at least two years on duty; 
in the case of direct recruitment the probationary period con1n1ences from the 
date on which the officer complet~ his training and; in the case of recruitment 
by trnru;fer it commences from the date the officer }oins duty. Under rule 7(b), 
the periOO of training of a direct recruit does not count towards probation. 
The petitioner was recruited to the Cadre of Joint Co1nrnercial Tax Officer 
as a direct recruit in 1966 and WM posted for training which he joined on 6th 
June 1966; he comrnenced his period of probation on 18th August 1967. On 
16th August 1972, the petitioner was promoted to the post 
of Commercial 
Tax Officer and on 14th January 1976 he was promoted as Assistant Com-
mis~ioner. The second respondent joined the post of Joi~t c·ommercia1 Tax 
(Jfficer ns a promotee on 25th .January 1967 and comn1enccd his probation 
from that date. 
He was promoted as Conunercial 'fax Officer on 17th Decem-
ber 1972 and as Assistant Commissioner on 26th AuguM: 1976 . 
Jn the combined inter-~ seniority list issued in G.0.Ms. No. 4103 dated 
9th July 1973, herein the petitioner and the second respondent were shown 
in the 1966 list at serial numbers 43 and 52 respectively. The validity of the 
combined int&-se seniority list was challenged in two writ petitions Nos. 2016 
and 2017 of 1972 filed by certam other officers in respect of the ranking 
from serial numbers 51 to serial number 78. 
The petitioner was not a party 
to the writ petition. The writ petition wa' allowed by the 
Madras 
High 
Court. The High Court took note of the fact that no rules had been framed 
indicating how the inter-se seniority between the direct recruits 
and 
the 
transferee recruits had to be fixed and therefore directed a fresh determination 
of the inter-se seniority on the basis of three principles: (i) Each year should 
be taken as a unit for fixing the inter-se seniority; (ii) Persons not actually 
appoiNed in the year 1966 should not be included in the 1966 year's list 
l l-463 SCI/80 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
ns 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 3 S.C.R. 
and their seniority should be determined with reference to the date of tloeir 
joining as Joint Commercial Tax Officers; and (iii) The date on which an 
officer commences probation is the proper criterion for 
fixing 
the 
in1er-se 
seniority. 
In the new combined inter·se seniority list, so prepared and issued by the 
Government in their order No. G.O. Ms. No. 2228 dated 27th December 1977, 
both the second respondent and the petitioner were shown at serial number 48 
and serial No. 49 respectively in the 1967 List. 
The petitioner, apprehending 
that the seniority assigned to him in the second combined inter·se seniority 
list of Joint Commercial Tax Officers would prejudice him in the promotions 
to be made to the category of Deputy Commissioners 
has 
challenged the 
validity of that seniority list. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HEW : I. Where the rules are specifically sileat there is no doubt that 
the Government is entitled to make an order filling up any lacuna or uncover-
ed gap in the rules. There is good reason in the principle followed 
in this 
case that seniority should be based on th.e length of effective service. 'The date 
.of confirmation in a post then loses its 

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