LexK. MADHAVAN AND ANR. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
K. MADHAVAN AND ANR. ETC. A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. OCTOBER 9, 1987 [RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARJ,MOHON DUTT, JJ.] B Service matter-Dispute about seniority-Notional/deemed date of appointment-Effect of-Length of service prior to transfer-Whether to be considered after transfer for purposes of seniority. (1) Writ Petitions Nos. 9847 and 9848 of 1983 involved a dispute C \ as to seniority between the petitioners K. Madhavan and Santunu Sen on ( the one hand and respondent No. 5, O.P. Sharma, on the other . . The two petitioners were directly recruited as Deputy Superinten· dents of Police (DSP) in the Delhi Special Police Establishment (S.P.E.) in the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) on 6.7.1963 and D 10.8.1963, respectively. The respondent No. 5, appointed to the post of D.S.P. on 13.7.1962 in the Rajasthan State Police, came on deputation to the C.B.I. as D.S.P. on 1.7.1967, where majority of the Officers are deputationists. The two petitioners were confirmed in the post of D.S.P. in the C.B.I. on 30.3.1967. The respondent No. 5 was confirmed as D.S.P. in the Rajasthan State Police on 1.12.1964. The two petitioners E were promoted to the rank of Superintendent of Police (S.P.) in the C.B.I. on 21.10.1971 and 25.1.1972. The respondent No. 5 was appointed to the post of S.P. on 28.10.1972. The Inspector General of Police, Delhi Special Police Establish· ment, and Director of C.B.I.-Respondent No. 2--published a senio· F , J rity list of departmental S.Ps. on 1.10.1978, in which the respondent - \ No. 5 was shown below both the petitioners. The respondent No. 2 also published another seniority list on 17.10.1981, in which the date of appointment of the respondent No. 5 was mentioned as 21.10.1971 (notional) instead of 28.10.1972, and on the basis of such notional date of appointment to the post of S.P. in the C.B.I1, the name of the respon· G dent No. 5 was placed above the names of the petitioners in that senio· . rity list. The two petitioners felt aggrieved by the latter seniority list, i- showing them as junior to the respondent No. 5 on lhe basis of a notional date of appointment with retrospective effect from 21.10.1971. The two petitioners moved this Court by Writ Petitions, challenging the said seniority list. H 421 422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] I S.C. R. 2. In the Writ Petition No. 1021 of 1986, filed by the petitioner A Dwarka Nath, the petitioner was regularly promoted on 14.6.1976 to ~ the post of the Deputy Commandant in the BSF, which, according to him, was equivalent to the grade of S.P. in the CBI. The respondent No. 5 in the Writ Petition was promoted on 4.8.1978 and the respondents Nos. 6 and 7 in the petition were promoted on 28. 7 .1978 to the posts of B S.P. in the CBI. The petitioner joined the CBI on deputation as S.P. on 29.9. 79 and was permanently absorbed in the CBI in the rank of SP on 28.10.1983. The respondents 5 to 7 were confirmed in the post of SP with Y effect from 4.8.1980. The principal question involved was whether in computing the seniority of the petitioner in the CBI in the rank of SP, his length of service from 14.6.1976, when he was the Deputy Com- mandant in the BSF, should be taken into account or not, as if his C service from 14.6.1976 is taken into consideration, he would be senior to the respondents Nos. 5 to 7, who were appointed in 1978. -~ Allowing all the Writ Petitions, the Court, D HELD: (1) In the Writ Petitions Nos. 9847 and 9848 of 1987, the two petitioners, Madhavan and Sen, and the respondent No. S, O.P. Sharma, are all now holding the posts of D.I.G. The real question, therefore, boils down to the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondent No S in the post of DIG, and that will depend upon the decision of the question of the seniority of the petitioners and respon- B dent No. 5 in the post of SP in the CBI. l431D-E] J--- F The most significant and crucial fact is the appointment of the respondent No. 5 to the post of SP with retrospective effect from a deemed date of appointment, that is, 21.10.1971. The petitioners strongly urged that such a deemed appointment with retrospective effect from 21.10.1971 was wholly illegal and should be struck down. The plea of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 was that the respondent \ .._ No. 5 became eligible for appointment to the post of SP in the CBI in /- - July 1970, and, indeed, the meeting of the DPC was scheduled t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.