M. SRINIVASA PRASAD AND ORS. versus THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 520 · Decided: 29-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M. SRINIV ASA PRASAD AND ORS. 
v. 
THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 29, 2007 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Seniority-Determination of-Seniority of direct recruits to the post of 
C Section Officer on passing examination-Claim that the initial appointment 
on probation to be reckoned towards the seniority-Recruitment Rules silent 
about the determination of inter se seniority-standing Orders issued by 
executive instruction to fill the gap unfilled by statutory Rules-Enforceability 
of-Held: Executive instructions can supplement the statutory Rules-Furth~r. 
D it cannot be said that seniority is to be reckoned from the date of appointment. 
Comptroller and Auditor General's Manual of Standing Orders 
(Administrative) Volume J~Indian Audit and Accounts Department Section 
Officer (Commercial Audit) Recruitment Rules, 1988. 
Appellants were appointed to the post of Section Officer (Commercial 
E Audit) by direct recruitment process. Their services are governed by Indian 
Audit and Accounts Department Section Officer (Commercial Audit) 
Recruitment Rules, 1988. As per the Rules, the appellants were to be on 
probation for two years and during the period of probation they were to qualify 
in the Section Officer's Grade Examination for appointment as regular Section 
Officers. The seniority of the appellants as Section Officer was reckoned from 
F the date they qualified in the Section Officer Grade Examination for 
appointment as regular Section Officers. Aggrieved appellants filed O.A. 
claiming that the initial appointment on probation was to be reckoned towards 
the seniority for the purpose of promotion from Section Officer to AAO. The 
Recruitment Rules of 1988 was silent regarding fixation ofseniority of the 
G direct recruits. The Comptroller and Auditor General's Manual of Standing 
Orders (Administrative) Volume 1 was issued by an executive instruction. 
This was challenged before the High Court. Unable to succeed there, the 
appellants have approached this Court 
The question which arose for consideration was as to whether by 
fl 
520 
M. SRINIVASA PRASAD v. THE COMPTROLLER & Jl.UDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 
521 
r-
executive instructions/standing orders the gap not covered by the Rules and A 
not inconsistent with the Rules if framed can be filled and whether they are 
valid and enforceable. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Government cannot amend or supersede statutory Rules B 
by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular 
point the Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue 
instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed. 
(Para 17) (528-G) 
1.2. The statutory rules are silent about the determination of inter se C 
seniority. In order to supplement the Rules, the standing orders by executive 
instructions, have been brought out to fill the gap unfilled by the statutory 
Rules. This was made clear by the Comptroller and Auditor General's Manual 
of Standing Orders (Administrative). Paragraph 5.6.6. of the executive 
instructions provides for the method for regulation of the seniority of the D 
direct recruits to the post of Section Officers on passing Part II of the Section 
Officers Grade Examination. (Paras 9, 13 and 19) (527-B; 523-H; 524-A) 
Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1967) SC 1910, followed. 
Union of India v. H. R. Patankar, (1984) (supp.) SCC 359, relied on. 
E 
Mohan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1997] 4 SCC 416, 
distinguished. 
2. The submissions that the seniority be reckoned from the date of 
appointment, that the executive instructions cannot supplement the rules, and F 
that merely accepting the terms and conditions of appointment would not debar 
the appellants from claiming seniority from the date of appointment, cannot 
be accepted. (Para 14] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5013 of 2000. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 12.07.2002 of the High Court 
of Delhi in CWP No. 984 of 2002. 
G 
Civil Appeal No. 5504 of2003. 
H 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
M.N. Krishnamani, N.K. Neeraj, R, Santhanan Krishnan, K. Radha Rani, 
4-_ 
P. Vijaya Kumar, Praveen K. Pandey, C. Tulari Krishna, D. Mahesh Babu, Anil 
Gautam, V.K. Singh, Onkar Prasad, Saumyajit Pani and M.P. Shorawala for the 
Appellants. 
· 
Yashraj Singh Deora, Harshvardhan Jha, Dhruv Mehta, (for Mis K.L. 
B Mehta & Co.) V.G. Pragasam, Krishan Mah
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.