LexK.S. VORA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
K.S. VORA AND OTHERS
A
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
OCTOBER 27, 1987
[RANGANATH MISRA AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.]
B
Seniority matter of government employees in the Gujarat Subordi-
nate Secretariat Service-Gujarat Subordinate Secretariat Service-
(Seniority of Assistants) Rules, 1977.
The appellants had joined the government service as clerks-com-
/
typists before the bifurcation, in May, 1960, of the State of Bombay into C
.JO- " Maharashtra and Gujarat States. The Subordinate Secretariat Service
then consisted of four grades-(i) Clerk-cum-typist, (ii) Junior
Assistant, (iii) Senior Assistant, and (iv) Superintendent. On the forma-
tion of Gujarat State, Government business in the secretariat was
divided into nine separate Departments so far as the Subordinate D
service was concerned. Later, by a government Resolution, a common
cadre of Superintendents for all the departments was created, and
promotion to the post of the Superintendent was directed to be made ont
of a common list of senior assistants, and by another resolution, the
grades of the senior assistants and junior assistants were merged into
~ one post termed as Assistant, and a common seniority list of the E
Assistants was prepared. In October, 1974, by another Resolution, a
common cadre of the clerks-com-typists was created and promotion to
the post of Assistant was provided therefrom. This October Resolution
of the government was challenged before the High Court by two writ
petitions. In the meantime, the Gujarat Subordinate Secretariat Service
(Seniority of Assistants) Roles, 1977, were framed, which were to come F
' into operation with retrospective effect from May, 1960. Rule 4 of the
~- Rules laid down the principle for determining seniority by providing
that seniority among promotees-Assistants inter se shall be rIXed on
the basis of their length of service in the joint cadre of clerk-cum-typist
for all Departments of the Secretariat as a whole.
The High Court passed an order, dismissing the two writ peti-
G
lions. The order of the High Court is appealed against by Special Leave
in this Court, mainly on the ground that the retrospective operation of
>°'I the Rules regarding seniority takes away the vested rights of the appel-
lants of their prospects of promotions.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
611
H
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1988] I S.C.R.
A
HELD: A Common cadre was created for increasing efficiency ".,-.
and in the interests of discipline. After the formation of the common
cadre, general feeling of dissatisfaction owing to disparity of seniority
was generated. The 1977 rules were introduced to ease that situation.
The scheme of the Rule regarding seniority protected the rank then held
by every member of the service notwithstanding the alteration of senior-
B ity on the new basis. To that extent, the 1977 rules were not retro-
spective. [615B-C]
+ .
There was no challenge to the creation of the common cadre.
Secondly, the rules of seniority are a matter for the employer to frame,
and even though the prospects of promotion were likely to be pre-
.
C
judiced by the introduction of some new set of rules to regulate senio-
}.__
rity, if the rules were made bona fide to meet the exigencies of the -
service, no entertainable grievance could be made, and the appellants
have no grievance to make. [61SE-F]
D
Mervyn v. Collector of Customs, Bombay and others, [1966] 3
S.C.R. 600; Roshan Lal Tandan v. Union of India, [1968] 1S.C.R.185
and State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa & others, [1974]
I S.C.R. 771, relied upon.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 712 ~
E of 1980.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.1978 of the Gujarat
High Court in Special C.A. No. 1073 of 1975.
V.M. Tarkunde, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, S. Bharatari and P.H.
Parekh for the Appellants.
,
P.S. Poti, M.N. Shroff, K.M.M. Khan and Mrs. H. Wahi for the ~
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal by special leave is direc-
ted against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in a dispute
centered round seniority of government employees in the Gujarat Sub-
~·
ordinate Secretariat Service.
The short facts necessary for disposal of the two contentions
H raised in this appeal are the following:
K.S. VORA v. STATE OF GUJARAT {MISRA, J.]
613
'(
On May 1, 1960, the State of Bombay }Vas bifurcated into two A
States-Maharashtra and Gujarat. Prior toExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.