MANOHAR LAL JAT & ORS. ETC. versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2020] 11 S.C.R. 948 · Decided: 26-11-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MANOHAR LAL JAT & ORS. ETC.
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 3832-3833 of 2020)
NOVEMBER 26, 2020
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services (General
Branch) Rules, 1975: r.27 – Seniority – Creation of post of Tax
Assistant – Proposal to fill 80% by direct recruitment and 20% from
amongst direct promotees – Advertisement issued on 25.01.2011
for recruitment of direct recruits – On 24.05.2011, advertisement
issued for filling up of 20% quota for direct promotees – Result of
written examination held for direct promotees  announced on
14.06.2011 and promotion letters issued on 23.06.2011 –
Provisional results for the test held for direct recruits declared on
16.05.2011 – Appointment orders of the direct recruits issued on
04.07.2011 after the police verification and medical test – In the
seniority list published on 04.06.2013, those appointed as direct
promotees in the 20% quota were shown as senior to the direct
recruits – Direct recruits challenged the seniority list – Held:
Advertisements (for filling up the entire cadre, in both the quotas or
streams of recruitment) were issued one after the other – This was
the first selection and recruitment to a newly created cadre – Delay
occurred on account of administrative exigencies (and also the
completion of procedure, such as verification of antecedents), thus,
the seniority of the promotees given on the basis of their dates of
appointment, was justified by r.27 – Service Law – Inter se seniority.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  A reading of the entire rule (Rule 27 [1] and the
two provisos) showed that (a) before the amendment of 2002,
the seniority of personnel appointed to the “lowest categories of
posts” in any department was to be determined as from the date
of appointment; however, for promotees, it was to be from the
date of selection; (b) after the amendment of 2002, seniority has
948
[2020] 11 S.C.R. 948
to be fixed (by reason of Rule 27 (1)) as on the date of appointment
to the post or service; (c) however, in the case of pre-state
integration of state (of Rajasthan) or pre-integration of services,
seniority could be “modified or altered by the Appointing Authority
on an ad hoc basis”- this clearly was meant to be a “sunset” clause,
i.e. operative for a limited period; (d) the second proviso,- which
is the one pressed into service by the DRs, states that seniority
of those selected earlier will be determined over those selected
latter. [Para 29][961-G-H; 962-A-C]
2.  The principal mandate of the rule is that seniority is
determined on the basis of date of appointment (“shall be fixed
from the date of their appointment”). Proviso (2) lists out two rules.
The first is that those selected and appointed through a prior
selection would rank senior to those selected and appointed
through a later selection process. The High Court, in this case,
was of the opinion that this rule (i.e., proviso) applied to selections
from the same source, i.e., where two sets of direct recruits were
appointed, those selected through a previous recruitment
process, would rank senior to those recruited through a later
recruitment process. This interpretation is, in this court’s opinion,
salutary. There may be various reasons why the ultimate
appointment of one batch of recruits may be delayed: challenges
to some part of the recruitment process (such as shortlisting,
calling of candidates for interviews, etc.), during which period, a
subsequent recruitment may be undertaken. To forestall any
apprehensions as to which of the appointees would be senior,
and if those from the earlier process are appointed later, the
proviso clarifies that candidates from the earlier process would
rank senior, despite the main rule speaking of a date of
appointment based seniority. The same logic would apply to
departmental promotees, as well, if two batches of promotees
are appointed through selection. The second limb of the second
proviso clarifies that when merit-based, or seniority-based
promotions are resorted to, the applicable norm would be
seniority in the feeder cadre, to forestall any debate about the
rule of merit (in the selection) being the guiding principle.  [Para
30][962-C-G]
MANOHAR LAL JAT v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
950
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
3.  Keeping in mind that the advertisements (for filling the
entire cadre, in both the quotas or streams of recruitment) were
issued one 

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