P. SRINIVAS versus M. RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 11 · Decided: 30-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'( 
--
--
P. SRINIVAS 
A 
v. 
M. RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY AND ORS. 
JANUARY 30, 2004 
(DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA Y AT, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Seniority-Appoi111ment Order issued to selected candidates by State 
Sen,ice Commission granting 60 days time to join duzv-Re~pondent no. J C 
joined duty within 60 days-Appellant sought extension of lime to join duty 
which was granted-Appellant 11·as placed senior to respondent no. l on the 
basis of merit which H'as never questioned by respondent no./ for over a 
decade-Respondent no. J challenging seniority of the appellant before Tribunal 
by contending that State Government had no power to grant extension of time D 
which vested with State Service Commission-Tribunal dismissed the petition--
High Court allowed the petition-Correctness of-Held, not correct-State 
Government had enabling power to grant extension of time which has been 
delegated to State Se111ice Commission-Respondent no. I cannot challenge 
seniority of the appellant belatedly. 
Appellant and respondent no. I were among the successful candidates 
selected by the State Service Commission to the post of Road Transport 
Officer in the year 1987. The Commission issued appointment orders to 
E 
the selected candidates granting 60 days time to join duty. The appellant, 
who was previously working in Central Government, sought extension of 
time as per the terms of the appointment order. The State Government F 
extended the joining time of the appellant by 20 days. The appellant joined 
the duty before the date. After regularisation of the services of the selected 
candidates, seniority lists were periodically prepared where the appellant 
was shown as senior to respondent no.I. In 1997, the appellant and 
respondent no.I were promoted as Deputy Transport Commissioner and G 
in the promoted post also, the appellant was shown senior to respondent 
no. I. 
Respondent no. I filed a petition before State Administrative 
Tribunal contending that the appellant should be ranked junior to 
I I 
1-I 
~ 
12 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A respondent no. 1 since the appellant joined the duty after the prescribed 
) 
period of 60 days indicated in the appointment order; that the power to 
grant extension of time vested with the State Service Commission and not 
with the State Government; and that under a G.O. issued in 1967, the 
appellant is ~ot entitled to seniority. The Tribunal dismissed the petition 
B 
ofrespondent no.I. He filed a Writ Petition before High Court. The High 
Court, allowed the Writ Petition. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the State 
Government granted extension of time for joining duty and that he had 
joined the duty within the extended time; that he was placed senior to 
c respondent no. 1 in various seniority lists for over a decade which was 
never questioned at any point of time by respondent no. 1; and that the 
respondent cannot, after a long lapse of time, question the propriety of 
the State Government to extend the time of joining of the appellant. 
Respondent no. I contended that the State Government had no 
D power to grant extension of time which vested with the State Service · 
Commission; and that the extension of time granted by the State 
Government to the appellant was bad in law. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. The State Service Commission was enabled to extend 
and give further time for joining before deleting the name of the candidate 
.. 
concerned from the select list for not joining in time. The power of 
extending time givefl to the State Service Commission under the G.O. was 
;. 
not in relation to any statutory prescription and cannot be also said to be 
F 
in derogation of the powers of the State Government as the ultimate 
repository of all Executive power. On the other hand, the State 
Gove~nment itself provided that the time could be extended if the State 
Service Commission considered it necessary. This was merely an enabling 
power conferred by the State Government only and the G.O. cannot be 
construed to be self destructive of the power of the .State Government in 
G the absence of any statutory rules as such, in this regard. The State Service 
Commission appears to have been enabled to grant time to effectively 
monitor the operation of the main list as well as the waiting list (in order 
of merit) without any undue lapse of time, in case the selected candidates 
1 
··• 
did not join within the indicated time period.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.