MADAN GOPAL GARG versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 815 · Decided: 11-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MADAN GOPAL GARG 
A. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
JULY 11, 1995 
(S.C. AGRAWAL AND MS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.) 
B 
Service Law-Punjab Food and Supplies Depa1tment (State Service 
class II) Rules, 1966-Seniority of promotees and direct recruits-Posts of 
Controller a11d Deputy DirectorS"-Appointment in excess of quota-lnvalid-ft C 
can be treated as a regular appointment only when a vacancy available-Such 
an appointment prior to regularisation cannot confer any right as against a 
person who is directly appointed within quota. 
The appellant and respondent No. 3 were promotees having been 
first promoted as Controller and later as Deputy Director. The promotion D 
of the appellant to the post of Controller was made effective from 6.12.1972 
and he was promoted as Deputy Director by order dated 29.12.1981/ 
1.1.1982 while respondent no. 3 was so promoted by an order dated 
17.l.1981. Respondent no. 2 was directly appointed as Controller .after 
being selected by the State Public Service Commission by order dated 
9.4.1974. He was promoted as D.eputy Director by order dated 10.11.1982. E 
In the tentative seniority list of Controllers, respondent no. 2 was placed 
as junior to the appellant and respondent no. 3 Subsequently, the list was 
revised and respondent No. 2 was shown as senior to the appellant and 
respondent 3 and was promoted as Joint Director. 
,Challenging the revision of seniority list and appointment of respon-
dent no. i as Joint Director, the appellant and respondent no. 3 flied a 
Writ Petition In the High Court seeking a declaration that they were senior 
F 
to respondent no. 2 as Deputy Directors and prayed for quashing of the 
order appointing respondent no. 2 as Joint Director. The petition was G 
allowed. The High Court held that the appointment of respondent no. 2 as 
Joint Director which was made solely on the basis of higher seniority in 
the cadre of Controllers/Assistant Director and Deputy Directors was 
invalid as the appellant and respondent no. 3 were appointed as Control· 
lers within the quota meant for promotees and they were so appointed 
earlier to the recruitment of respondent no. 2 both iii the cadre of Con- H 
815 
816 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
!roller as well as Deputy Directors and therefore, they were senior to 
respondent no. 2. 
B 
Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal against the judgment of the Single 
Judge which was allowed. The Division bench accepting the averments 
made in the affidavit filed by Special Secretary to Government of Punjab 
in the Department of Food and Supplies, held that both the writ petitioners 
were not holding the post of Controller/ Assistant Director/ Additional Dis-
trict Food and Supplies Controller, within the quota of promotees and, in 
fact, at the time of their promotion, there was no post available in 
promotees 'quota' and that they were promoted against posts meant for 
C 
direct recruit' and they had to make room for the direct recruits whenever 
they were selected and posted on these posts and therefore, they could not 
claim seniority under Rule 10 of the Punjab Food and Supplies Depart-
ment (State Service Class II) Rules, 1966, on the basis of continuous 
appointment on the post of Controller and they had been rightly shown as 
junior to respondent No. 2 in the cadre of Controller/Assistant Direc-
D tors/Additional Controllers; that the quota rule had not broken down as 
a result of promotions in excess of the quota being made during the period 
from 1966 to 1974, the State Government had been consistently and 
persistently making efforts to fill in the posts meant for direct recruits and 
the said posts could not be filled at the proper time only because of the 
E 
cumbersome procedure of selection of direct recruits and that there was 
no inaction or inertia on the part of the Government and that there had 
been no deviation in implementing the rule. The appellant alone had filed 
this appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Conrt, 
F 
The appellant urged that since the number of vacancies that had 
occurred during the period from 1966 till March 31, 1974 had not been 
indicated by the State, the only basis for applying the quota rule could be 
to take into account the total number of appointments that had been made 
during that period and therefore, his appointment had been made within 
the quota prescribed for promotees under the Rules and that in any event, 
G the quota rule had broken

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