MAJOR YOGENDERA NARAIN YADAV ETC. versus SHRI BINDESHWAR PRASAD AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 811 · Decided: 10-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MAJOR YOGENDERA NARAIN YADAV ETC. 
A 
v. 
SHRI BINDESHWAR PRASAD AND ORS. ETC. 
DECEMBER 10, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
Bihar Engineering Class-I Service Rules, 1939: Rules 17, 24 and 27. 
Service Law-Seniority-Determination of-Government of C 
Bihar-Demobilised Militmy Officers-Govemment circular giving benefit of 
past service for the purposes of seniority-Appellant a Short Commissioned 
Officer released from Anny-Subsequently selected by Public Service Com-
mission and appointed as Assistant Engineer-His request to place in a 
pennanent post available to demobilised Officer with effect from the date 011 D 
which he joined the Amzy as Commissioned Officer acceded tcr-Respondents 
regularly selected as Assistant Engineers by Public Service Commission and 
appointed to temporary posts-Even before entering into service of appellant 
respondents became Executive Engineers-But respondents confinned later 
than the appellant-In such circumstances High Court held that the appoint-
ment of the appellant as Executive Engineer without considering the claims E 
of the respondents was not correct in /aw-Since the respondents were already 
working as on the date when the appellant had entered the service as Execu-
tive Engineers though as temporary Assistant Engineers, their seniority has to 
be reckoned from the date of their initial appointment-Thereby they became 
senior to the appellant-Appeaf-The view of the High Court that the appel-
lant is not entitled to seniority and other benefits is clearly bad in law-But 
for the Circular of the Government of Bihar, giving the benefit of past service 
as a demobilised militmy officer, obviously the appellant has no right to claim 
seniority over them-Though the respondents were senior in temporary posts 
F 
or in temporary promotions as Executive Engineers their status remained as G 
tempormy until they were confim1ed-Before their confinnation as Executive 
Engineers, the case of the appellant, a senior pennanent Assistant Engineer 
was not considered-So that confinnation was bad in /aw-Though for 
purposes other than seniority, their tempormy service would be counted, for 
the purpose of seniority only confmnation as pennanent Assistant Engineers 
would be the criteria. 
811 
H 
812 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Direct Recmit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of 
Maharashtra & Ors., [1992) 2 SCC 715, held inapplicable. 
State of West Bengal v. Aghore Nath Dey, (1993) 3 SCC 371, referred 
to. 
B 
Dr. (Capt.) Akhouri Ramesh Chandra Sinha & Ors. v. State of Bihar 
c 
D 
E 
& Ors., (1966) 2 SCC 20, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1394 of 
1991 etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.90 of the Patna High 
Court in C.W J.C. No. 3941of1983. 
A. Sh;rrari and AP. Singh for the Appellants. 
B.B. Singh for State. 
S.B. Sanyal, Uday Sinha, Pravir Choudhary, Irshad Ahmad, P.D. 
Sharma and K.N. Rai for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered.: 
Leave granted in the special leave petitions. 
These appeals have a chequered history. But it is not necessary to 
burden the judgment with minute details of the entire history of the case. 
Suffice it to state that Major Yogendra Narain Yadav, the appellant in the 
F main appeal, was a Short Commissioned Officer in the Army as Engineer 
and was appointed on April 15, 1963 and was released from the Army on 
October 25, 1970. Pursuant to an advertisement for appointment to a post 
of a temporary Asstt. Engineer made in 1973 he was selected by the Public 
Service Commission and was appointed to that post on July 29, 1974. The 
Government of Bihar had issued Circular dated June 21, 1969 in which it 
G was stated· that 30% of the posts of permanent as well as temporary 
Engineers were available to the demobilised Army officers and the date of 
entry into the State service would be the date of their attaining the age of 
eligibility for appointment in the military service or actual date of entry, 
whichever is later. Pursuant thereto, the appellant made a request by a 
H memorandum to the Government to consider his case for permanent post 
Y.N. YADAV v. BINDESHWARPRASAD 
813 
available to the demobilised officers and appoint him to that post with A 
effect from the date on which he joined the Army as Commissioned 
Officer. Request was acceded to and an order came to be passed by 
proceedings date!l December 6, 1977 giving him the date of his pe

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