P.S. GHALAUT versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 506 · Decided: 03-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
P.S. GHALAUT 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 3, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.) 
Se1Vice Law : 
Hwyana Medical Education Se1Vice Rules, 1965: 
Rule 13-Second proviso-lnter-se Seniority-Order of merit deter-
mined by Service Commission-Backward class quota-JOO point 
roaste~Some places eamiarked for reserved candidates-171e order of merit 
indicated in the Second proviso applies only to inter-se the general candidates 
or rese1ved candidates but gets changed when vacancies are filled up as per 
D roaster and appointments made thereundel'-"Roaster Scheme held valid and 
not arbitrary-Hence constitutional. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
A1ticles 14, 16(1) & (4), 335-lnter-se Seniority-Fixation of-Roaster 
E scheme followed under Rule 13-Second Proviso of the Haryana Medical 
Education Se1Vice Rules, 1965-Constitution Validity of-Held: Valid. 
F 
G 
This appeal relates to inter-se seniority between the appellant and 
one NA, who belonged to backward class. In his writ petition before the 
High Court, the appellant contended that since the order of merit given by 
the Selection Committee and the letter of appointment indicated that he 
was high up in the order of merit to NA, he was senior to her, as per the 
second proviso to Rule 13 of the Haryana Medical Education Service 
Rules, 1965. The High Court rejected the contention and dismissed the writ 
petition. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. It is true that Rule 13 of the Haryana Medical Education 
Service Rules, 1965 envisages that the seniority i'!ter se of members of the 
service shall be determined by the length of continuous service on any post 
H in the service provided further that in the case of two or more members 
506 
,. 
P.S. GHALAUT v. STATE 
507 
appointed by direct recruitment the order of merit determined by the A 
Commission shall not be disturbed in fixing the seniority. (509-E] 
1.2. When the roaster is maintained to give effect to the constitution-
al policy of reservation to render socio-economic justice to the concerned 
sections, respective places assigned to the candidates belonging to them, 
general candidates, backward classes or Scheduled Castes or Scheduled B 
Tribes, as the case may be, the change in the order of merit inevitably gets 
affected. If original order of merit prepared by the Public Service Com-
mission or Selection Committee, if remains unaffected, roaster becomes 
redundant and always remains unimplemented. The reserved candidates 
always remain at the bottom of the selection list unless selected as general C 
candidates in the order of merit. To relieve such injustice and hardship, 
roaster is maintained and vacancies are filled up in the order maintained 
therein. The placement of candidates shall be to the respective points f1Xed 
in the roaster. [509-H; 510-A-B] 
1.3. Though general candidate is more meritorious in the order of D 
merit prepared by the Public Service Commission or the Selection Com-
mittee, when the appointments are made and the vacancies are filled up 
according to the roaster, necessarily and inevitably the Reserved can-
didates though less meritorious in the order of merit maintained by the 
Public Service Commission would occupy the respective places assigned in E 
ihe roaster. Thereby· they steal a march over some of the ge~eral can· 
didates and get seniority over the general candidates. This scheme, is, 
therefore, constitutional, valid and is not arbitrary. [510-E-F] 
1.4. The order of merit indicated in the second proviso would be 
applicable only inter se to the general candidates or reserved candidates 
F 
but gets changed when vacancies are filed up as per roaster and appoint· 
ments are made thereunder. The High Co~rt, therefore, was right in 
holding that the 2nd proviso to Rule 13 is inapplicable to the facts and 
was also right in its finding that when appointments are made to fill up 
the vacancies in the order or roaster, the order of merit prepared by the G 
Selection Committee get changed. [511-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7608 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.5.93 of the Punjab & Haryana H 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 4946 of 1993. 
B 
Manoj Goel and Ravathy Raghavan for the Appellants. 
Sunil Gupta, Ms. lndu Malhotra, Dania Pradhan and S.C. Patel for 
the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We

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