M.S. SANDHU & ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 460 · Decided: 07-05-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 460 
M.S.SANDHU &ANR. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5397-5406 of 2014) 
MAY0?,2014 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND A. K.SIKRI, JJ.] 
c 
Service Law -
Seniority -
Cadre of Deputy 
Superintendent of Police (DSP) -Dispute between 
promotees and direct recruits- High Court quashed seniority 
list prepared by the State Government and directed it to 
prepare fresh seniority list in accordance with the judgment 
D in the case of Paramjit Singh where the Supreme Court had 
held that rule of quota should apply not only at the time of 
appointment but at the time of confirmation also and 
confirmation is to be done on the basis of vacancies - Plea 
of appellants that the principle laid down in Paramjit Singh 
E case was totally discarded by the subsequent Constitution 
Bench judgment in the case of S.S. Yadav wherein it was held 
that the rule of quota applicable at the stage of appointment/ 
recruitment will have no applicability at the time of 
confirmation; and that the High Court ought to have followed 
F the judgment in S.S. Yadav case since that judgment was 
already before it when this case was decided by the High 
Court- Whereas in Paramjit Singh case, rules pertaining to 
officers of DSP cadre itself (i.e. the 1959 Rules) were in issue 
in B.S.Yadav case, some other Rules (i.e. 1963 Rules) came 
G up for interpretation -Approach of the High Court in following 
the dicta laid down in Paramjit Singh - Justification - Held: 
Justified, as it pertained to the same Service and same Rules 
- That is the mandate of Art. 141 of the Constitution - Since · 
H 8. S. Yadav case did n6J overrule Paramjit Singh case and 
460 
M.S.SANDHU v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
461 
rather explained and approved that judgment, the High Court A 
had no option but to follow Paramjit Singh case- Constitution 
of India, 1950-Art.141- Doctrines I Principles- Doctrine of 
stare decisis - Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959- rr. 3, 4, 6, 8 
and 10 - Punjab Judicial Servi9e Rules, 1963. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. In a matter like this, the approach of the 
High Court to follow the dicta in Paramjit Singh is most 
appropriate which pertains to the same Service and same C 
Rules. That is the mandate of Article 141 of the 
Constitution. The High. Court could depart only in a 
situation where it finds that the said judgment has been 
subsequently overruled, specifically or impliedly or it is 
per· incurium. Significantly, Paramjit Singh's case has 0 
been specifically taken note of and commented upon by 
the Constitution bench. It is clear that the judgment in 
Paramjit Singh is not overruled by B.S.Yadav either 
impliedly or specifically. It also cannot be said that 
Paramjit Sing h's case is per in curium nor was it argued. E 
[Paras 30, 31 and 34][486-C-E; 488-G-H] 
1.2. The appellants are the promotees. It was at the 
instance of this very class viz. promotee officers in the 
same service who had questioned the validity of the Rule F 
10 of the 1959 Rules, this Court was provoked to decide 
that the quota rule had to be applied not only at the stage 
of initial recruitment, but also at the stage of confirmation. 
It is strange that when another set of promotees now 
feel that the aforesaid interpretation rendered in favour G 
of their own class, is not conducive to them and the 
outcome is to their prejudice, they want the Court to take 
a 'U' turn. Such a situation cannot be countenanced as 
it would be anathema to the principle of doctrine of stare 
H 
462 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13S.C.R. 
A decisis. Moreover, once it is found that the B.S.Yadav 
does not overrule Paramjit Singh and rather explains 
and approves that judgment, the High Court had no 
option but to follow Paramjit Singh, as well as the 
coordinate Bench of this Court. The operation of the 
B Rules may result in harsh consequences as far as 
appellants are concerned. But on the vagaries of such 
outcomes, the Court cannot keep on interpreting a rule 
differently. It is more especially when the promotees 
being in excess of their quota have enjoyed the fortuitous 
C appointment beyond their quota of vacancies. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[Paras :35, 37][489-B-E; 490-E-F] 
Paramjit Singh & Ors. v. Ram Rakha 1979 (3) SCC 
478 - explained. 
B.S. Yadav v. U.0.1. 1980 Suppl. SCC 524: 1981 
SCR 1024; R.K.Sabharwal v. U.0.1. (1995) 2 SCC 
745: 1995 (2) SCR 35; Sura} Parkash Gupta v. 
State of J & K. 2000 (7) SCC 561 : 2000 (3) SCR 
807; G.S.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.