MOHAN DUTT SHARMA versus CHIEF JUSTICE, PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 162 · Decided: 30-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MOHAN DUTI SHARMA 
v. 
CHIEF JUSTICE, PUNJAB AND HARYANA 
HIGH COURT 
JULY 30, 1997 
(SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.) 
Service Law : The Punjab and Haryana High Coult (Conditions of 
Service) Rules : Rules 8,12 and 24: Promotion-Selection on the basis of 
C seniority cum merit except where competitive examination is prescribed-Out 
of tum promotion to a specially created post. 
-D 
E 
Rule 30-Seniority-To be detennined separately for each cadre of posts. 
Rule 38-l'ower of Chief Justice to relax any rule to avoid undue 
hardship-Imposition of conditions-Whether violative of High Court 
Rules-Held, imposition of a condition protecting the seniority of other 
officers in the lower cadre in view of the out of tum promotion cannot be 
considered unjust and unreasonable. 
The Appellant.joined the Punjab and Haryana High Court as a Clerk 
in 1966. In 1973 he was promoted as Assistant, and Senior A~sistant in 
1979. In 1978, the High Court set up an Internal Audit Cell. The Appellant 
worked In the Internal Audit Cell. The High Court did not have any 
qualified staff who had passed the Accounts Services Examination. In 
F 
1981, the appellant was the first official to qualify the SAS examination. 
The appellant made a representation to the Chief Justice that in view of 
his qualification and experience, he should be appointed as Superinten· 
dent for the purpose of conducting audit of accounts. By an office order 
the appellant was appointed as officiating Superintendent Grade-II w.e.f. 
3.2.1982, as a special case, in a newly created post to meet the special 
G requirements of the High Court with the condition that on his promotion 
he will not be deemed to have become senior to those who are otherwise 
senior to him in the general category. In May 1982 appellant made a 
further representation that in view of the nature of his work and respon· 
sibilities he should be promoted as Superintendent Grade I. The appellant 
H was promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade· I with a similar condi· 
162 
M.D.SHARMAv. PUNJABANDHARYANAHIGHCOURT 
163 
tion. In 1987 the appellant made a representation seeking waiver of the A 
conditions and that he be given seniority from the date of his appointment 
as Superintendent Grade·II and as Grade-I on his promotion, which was 
rejected. The appellant filed a writ petition which was also dismissed. 
Hence this appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. There is no doubt that it was in very special circumstances 
that the appellant was given the two promotions, which he would not have 
otherwise got. At the same time, if the Chief Justice thought it fit to impose 
B 
a condition protecting the seniority of other officers, in the lower cadre in C 
view of this out of turn promotion, that condition cannot be considered as 
unjust and unreasonable. [168-E·G] 
2. At the time when the appellant was promoted as Superintendent 
Grade-II, the appellant was 95th in the seniority list of the Assistants. D 
Therefore, the condition that on his promotion, he will not be deemed to 
have become senior to those officials who are otherwise senior to him in 
"the general seniority" would be referable to all those officials who were 
senior to the appellant in the seniority list of Assistants. These Assistants 
would, as and when promoted as Superintendents Grade· II, rank above 
the appellant although the appellant was promoted as Superintendent E 
Grade·lI prior to them. Obviously, the conditions will operate so long as 
the appellant remains in the cadre of Superintendent Grade-II. 
[168-G·H; 169-A·B] 
3. The general seniority referred to in the condition imposed at each 
step is the general seniority in the cadre which promotion is made to the F 
post in question. The condition so imposed cannot be understood as 
continuing for all times in respect of all future promotions of the appellant 
made in the normal course by applying the principle of selection. Such an 
interpretation would make the condition onerous and also beyond the 
powers conferred by Rule 38 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court (Con· G 
ditions of Service) Rules. [169-H; 170-D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 451 of 
1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.87 of the Punjab & H 
164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 5932 of 1987. 
R.K. Dhawan, for N.D. Garg for the Appellant. 
Gaurab Banerjee for S.P. Sharma for the Respondent. 
B 
The Jud

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