K.R. MUDGAL & ORS. versus R.P. SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 993 · Decided: 30-09-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

--~ 
. 
r 
-• 
r 
K.R. MUDGAL & ORS. 
v. 
R.P. SINGH & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.I 
Civil Services. 
. 
Seniority list-Fixation of seniority-Necessity for aggrieved offi-
cials to approach Court at the earliest. 
The Ministry of Home Affairs by its Office Memorandum dated 
14th May, 1940 laid down that if a vacancy arose in the cycle meant for 
a direct recruit, the direct recruit would rank senior to the depart-
mental candidates even though the direct recruit joined the post after 
the departmental candidate had been promoted and confirmed. This 
principle of fixation of seniority was subsequently superseded by Office 
Memorandum dated 22nd June 1949, which provided that the seniority 
would be determined on the basis of the length of service. Another 
Office Memorandum issued on 22nd December, 1959, in supersession of 
the 1949 Office Memorandum laid down that the seniority was to be 
lixed on the basis of the date of confirmation. 
Some of the officfals, who had been directly appointed as Assis-
tants in a department of the Government of India in the year 1957, f"tled 
a writ petition in the High Court in th.e year 1976 questioning the 
validity of the appointments of certain other Assistants who had been 
appointed or absorbed as Assistants prior to the induction of the writ 
petitioners into service as Assistants, and also the assisgnment of 
seniority to them over and above the petitioners. 
The lirst draft seniority list of the Assistants in that department 
was issued in 1958 on the basis of length of continuous service placing 
the officials who were respondents to the writ petition above the peii-
tioners, and was duly circulated. No objections were received from the 
writ petitioners against the seniority assigned to them in the said seni-
ority list. Subsequently, the seniority lists in the Grade of Assistants 
were again issued in 1961 and 1965.but again no objections were raised 
by the writ petitioners. 
993 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
994 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
11986] 3 S.C.R. 
On the basis of the 1959 Office Memorandum the seniroity list, as 
maintained in the department up to 1965, was revised in March, 1968. 
In the revised seniority list the writ petitioners became senior to many 
of the departmental Assistants, who had a longer length of service, but 
for one reason or the other had not been confirmed in the post or were 
confirmed after the confirmation of the writ petitioners. Consequent to 
the decision of this Court in Union of India v. M. Ravi Verma, 11972] 2 
SCR 992, the said seniority list was again revised in the year 1976 
resulting in the respondents in the writ petition, who were governed by 
the 1949 Office· Memorandum, being shown as seniors to the peti-
tioners. 
The petitioners questioned the validity of the seniority list 
published in 1976. The respondents in the writ petition raised a ·preli-
minary objection to the writ petition stating that it was liable to be 
dismissed on the ground of Iaches. The writ petition was dismissed by 
the Single Judge. The Letters Patent appeal tiled by the petitoners was, 
however, allowed by the Division Bench, without adverting to the 
ground of delay. The ancillary directions given by (he Court resulted in 
the disturbance of the seniority of the above said. respondents, who had 
been working in the department and on the date of the judgment had 
put in more than twenty-five years of service as Assistants. 
Allowing the appeals by special leave tiled by the Union of India as 
well as the officials, who had been appointed prior to the date on which 
the writ petitioners were appointed, the Court, 
HELD: The High Court was wrong in rejecting the preliminary 
objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the writ petition on the 
ground oflaches. [IOOOE-F] 
It is essential that any one who feels aggrieved by the seniority 
assigned to him should approach the court as early as possible, as 
otherwise in addition to the creation of a sense of insecurity in the minds 
of the Government servants there would also be administrative compli-
cations and difficulties. llOOOD-E] 
Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no 
sense of uncertainty amongst the Government servants created by the 
writ petitions tiled after several years. A Government servant who is 
appointed to any post ordinarily should at least after a period of 3 or 4 
years of his appointment be

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