MAKAR DHWAJ PAL AND ORS. ETC. versus SMT. NEERA YADAV AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 9 · Decided: 04-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
I 
MAKAR DHWAJ PAL AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
SMT. NEERA YADAV AND ANR. ETC. 
JANUARY 4, 1994 
[A.M. AHMADI, M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.J 
B 
Service Law : 
U.P. Forest Service Rules, 1952 : "· 5, 6 and 24-Seniority-Asstt. 
Conservator of Forest-Appointment to post of-By direct recruitment and by C 
promotion according to quota fixed under rules-Directions to fix inter se 
seniority and preparation of seniority list given. 
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 : Asstt. Conservators of Forest, U.P.-
Court's directions to ftx inter se seniority of-Seniority list prepared by Govem-
ment-<:ontempt petition filed by Officers complaining defiance of court's D 
directions in fixing seniority-Held, though in working out the directions State 
Government committed mistake in law, it could not be regarded to be a case 
of contempt. 
This Court in Keshav Chander Joshi&. Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 
E 
A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 284 gave directions to determine inter se seniority of the 
direct recruits and promotee Asstt. Conservators in accordance with 
rr.5(a) and 5(b), 6 and 24 of the U.P. Forest Service Rules 1952. The 
Government prepared a draft seniority list and circulated the same invit-
ing objections. The promotees as well as some of the subsequent direct 
recruits filed the present contempt petitions complaining against fixation F 
of their inter se seniority. 
It was contended on behalf of the direct recruits that the seniority 
list showing them to be temporary was in utter contempt of the directions 
of this Court, since they were appointed to the substantive vacancies as G 
held in K.C. Joshi's case and their seniority should have been fixed accord-
ingly from the date on which they started discharging the duties. 
On behalf of the promotees, it was contended that w.e.f. 1.3.1985, 
their quota having been increased to 50%, they were entitled to 50% of the 
quota in the tentative list but since this was not done, the action of the H 
9 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
State was in definace of the directions issued by this Court. 
B 
c 
The State Government contended that because the seniority as per 
the directions of this Court was fixed quota-wise only with respect to 
substantive posts, some of the direct recruits became temporary direct 
recruits and their seniority was determi~ed accordingly; and as regards 
the promotees, though in 1985 the decision was taken to give 50% quota to 
the promotees, the statutory rules were not made to that effect and, 
therefore, the promotees were entitled only to 33113 percent of the posts. 
Disposing of the contempt petitions, this Court 
HELD : 1. The instant case cannot be taken strictly to be a case of 
contempt, but in working out the directions issued by this Court the State 
Government committed mistake in law in determining the seniority. [14-B] 
2.1. Though a decision was taken on 1.3. 1985 to increase the quota 
D of promotees to 50%, no amendment to the statutory rules to give effect to 
it was made; and, therefore, the operative rule as on that date is 331/3 per 
cent in respect of promotees. There is no rota prescribed in the rules. 
Therefore, the State is enjoined to implement the judgment of this Court 
in the light of the statutory rules. (14-D, E] 
E 
F 
G 
2.2. There are posts both permanent and temporary. If the tem-
porary posts are likely to continue for long, they be treated, for the purpose 
of counting seniority, as permanent posts unless they are likely to be 
abolished. Since it is a policy matter, the State has to determine whether 
the posts are likely to be made permanent or abolished. In the event of 
converting them as permanent posts under r. 24, the quota prescribed in 
r.6 would be applied to substantive posts. The seniority shall be deter-
mined in accordance with the quota rule to the posts available in the 
respective years in which the vacancies had arisen, otherwise existing 
substantive posts should be filled up applying r. 6. [14-F, GJ 
2.3. The State Government would determine the vacancies existing 
in the year 1974-75 and would determine the number of posts reserved for 
direct receruits ~nd promotees in accordance with the quota. On so 
determining, the direct recruits would go en block as seniors to the 
promotees and the promotees would be appointed under r. 5(b) read with 
H r. 6 and placed below the direct recruits. Similar exercise would be d ')De 
a 
.,( 
M.D.PAL v. NEERAYADAV[K.RAMASWAMY,J.) 
11 
in each subsequent year
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.