MOHAN LAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, SHIMLA-2 AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 1160 · Decided: 17-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MOHAN LAL AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS 
SECRETARY, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT, 
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, SHIMLA-2 AND ORS. 
MARCH 17, 1997 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
. Service Law: 
Himachal Pradesh Excise and Taxation Depa1tment Inspector:ite Staff 
Class III Service (Seniority) Rules/Himachal Pradesh Excise and Taxatio11 
Depaltment (I11spectorate Staff Class Ill) (Examinatio11) Rules : 
Rule 11/Ru/e 4-Excise and Taxatio11 I11spectors-Direct recmit-
D ment-Seniority-After appoi11tment candidates to pass depa1tme11tal et-
a111i11ation within two years-Candidates who pass the etami11atio11 after two 
years of appoi11t111ent-Held, their se11iority will be recko11ed from the date of 
their passing the etaminatio11. 
Ishwari Kumar & Ors. v. State of H.P. (C.A. No. 4258/92) decided on 
E 
March 24, 1994, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2417 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.96 of the Himachal 
F 
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla in O.A. No. 788 of 1995. 
G 
Arun Jaitley and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for the Appellants. 
O.P. Sharma, R.C. Gobrele, K.R. Gupta, Vivek Sharma, Ashok 
Sudan, Mrs. Nanita Sharma for the Respondents. 
AK. Sikri and Mrs. Madhu Sikri for the Respondent Nos. 18-20 and 
35. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel oil both sides. 
1160 
I 
MOHAN LALv. STATE 
1161 
This appeal, by special leave arise from the order of the H.P. A 
Administrative Tribunal, made on October 28, 1996 in O.A. No. 788/95. 
The determination of inter-se seniority of the direct recruits is the 
only question in this case. The appellants and the respondents came to be 
selected by direct recruitment against vacancies in the permanent posts of 
Excise and Taxation Inspectors in the H.P. Excise and Taxation Depart-
ment (Inspectorate staff, Class III) Service. The question relates to the 
interpretation of Rule 11 of the (seniority) service Rules read with Rule 4 
(Examination) of the Rules. It is : whether examination has to be passed 
within two years from the date of appointment on probation or within the 
extended period of four years? If a candidate passes the examination within 
two years from the date of the appointment and joins the duty, indisputably 
under Rule 11(3) of the Rules, un confirmation on the expiry of probation, 
the seniority relates back to the date of appointment. The situation where 
B 
c 
a candidate does not pass the examination within two years but within the 
extended period of four years is dealt with under proviso to sub-rule (3) D 
of Rule 11 which reads thus: 
"11 (3) On the completion of the period of probation a person and 
passing the prescribed examination the appointment authority 
may-
(a) if his work and conduct is found statisfactory-
(i) confirm such person from the date of his appointment if 
appointed against a permanent vacancy; or 
(ii) Confirm such person from the date from which a permanent 
vacancy occurs; if appointed against a temporary vacancy; or 
(iii) declare that he has completed his probation satisfactory if 
there is no permanent vacancy; or 
E 
F 
(b) if his work or conduct has not been, in its opinion, satisfactory G 
and in the case of non-passing of prescribed departmental ex-
amination-
(i) dispense with his services, if appointed by direct appointment 
or if appointed otherwise revert him to his former post, or deal 
within such other manner as the terms and conditions of his H 
1162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1997] 2 S.C.R. -4 
A 
previous appointment; permit; or 
B 
(ii) extent his period of probation and thereafter, pass such orders 
as it could have passed on the expiry of the first period of proba-
tion. This shall also apply mutatis mutandis to the departmental 
examinations; 
Provided that the total period of probation and the time allowed 
. for passing the departmental examinations, including extension, if 
any shall not exceed four years." 
C 
It appears that series of orders came to be passed by the Administra-
tive Tribunal and one arising therefrom was decided by this Court. In the 
first round of litigation in which one Sud was the applicant, the Tribunal 
had held that the seniority would be conferred on those who passed within 
two years from the date of joining the service. and those who passed 
D subsequently would rank juniors to them. In the case of Mohan Lal & Ors. 
in the second set of litigation

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