KARAM CHAND versus HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 702 · Decided: 31-10-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
KARAM CHAND 
v. 
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. 
OCTOSER 31, 1988 
[M.P_. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
Punjab P. W.D. (Electricity Branch) Provincial Service Class III 
(Subordinate Posts) Rules, 1952. Rule 9-Seniority-Fixation of-
Normally 'in accordance to the date of appointment' -Exception-Case 
of temporary promotion. 
The appellant, who belongs to the Scheduled Castes community, 
joined service as a clerk on February 20, 1954 in the Electricity Branch 
of the Punjab Public Works Department. In February 1959, the Punjab 
State Electricity Board was constituted and the employees of the 
Electricity Branch were transferred to the said Board. The conditions 
of service of the employees were governed by the existing terms and 
conditions, as well as the existing service rules. 
In 1967, the Haryana State Electricity Board was constituted and 
the appellant was allocated to the said Board. The Electricity Board by 
its resolution dated March 16, 1976 adopted the circular letter dated 
December is, 1972 providing for reservation of 22% of Vacancies both 
for initiai recruitment as well as for promotion to the Scheduled Castes 
and Scheduled Tribes as well as to members of the backward classes. 
The appellant was promoted on September 25, 1973 as Deputy 
SuperinrenlieiiL The respondent No. 2 was also promoted by the same 
order as Deputy Supel"inteildeitt. However, In the said order, it was 
made cleat by :a note appended thereto that the earlier promotion of the 
offieials wiii no\ ·confer on theill ·aity right to claim seniority over others. 
On April 27, i'91i, .a circular was issued by the Chief Secretary, 
Government of Haryana to all the Departments regarding the criteria 
for reservation for members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
G in the service and fixation of their seniority. As the seniority of the 
appeilalit was not determined from the date of his appointment to the 
post of Deputy Superintendent, he made a representation to the Board 
requesting for its determination. This representation was, however, 
rejected on the ground· that seniority in the promoted rank would be 
accorded 'only With reference to the inter se seniority in the previous 
H post; and •on January 20, 1977, the appellant was finally informed that 
702 
j.
KARAM CHAND v. H.S.E.B. 
703 
~· 
his seniority will not be computed from the date of his promotioll to the 
A 
post of Deputy Superintendent, On January 12, 1977 respondents 2 and 
3 who were junior to the appellant as Deputy Superintendent were 
promoted as Superintendent superseding the claim of the appellant. 
Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the first respondent in pro-
moting respondents 2 and 3, the appellant filed a writ petition in the B 
High Court for a mandamus directing respondent l to consider his case 
for promotion for the post of Superintendent on the basis of his ·being 
the senior-most Deputy Superintendent. The writ petition was contested 
on behalf of the respondent l who stated in its counter-affidavit that the 
petitioner could not claim seniority above the respondents 2 and 3 in the 
rank of Deputy Superintendent on the ground that his seniority had c 
already been fixed in accordance with the exception below rule 9 of the 
I( 
1952 Service Rules. 
A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on 
the ground that the instructions governing the matter of promotion in 
favour of Scheduled Castes candidate had nothing to do with the D 
determination of the seniority of these candidates and that the letter 
promoting the petitioner had specifically mentioned that the earlier 
promotion would not confer on him any right of claim to seniority over 
and a!iove those who are otherwise senior to him in the cadre from 
which he was promoted and that in the light of the exception to rule 9 of 
the I 952 Service Rules, the petitioner being promoted temporarily, his 
E 
seniority cannot .be counted from the date of his appointment in the 
higher post and that respondents 2 and 3, who could be treated senior to 
him in the rank of Deputy Superintendent as they were sellior to the 
petitioner in the grade of assistants. 
The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant having been F 
dismissed summarily, the appellant appealed to this Court by special 
leave. 
Allowing the Appeal, 
HELD. l. On a plaiii reading of Rule 9 it appears that the 
seniority of the members of the service serving in an officiating capacity ti 
shal

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