PRABHJOT SINGH MAND & ORS. versus BHAGWANT SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 143 · Decided: 29-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

-
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 143 
PRABHJOT SINGH MAND & ORS. 
v. 
BHAGWANT SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6253 of 2008) 
JULY 29, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976 c 
Rules 18, 21 - lnter-se seniority between direct recruits and 
promotees - In first round of litigation, direct recruits held to 
be entitled to be promoted to /AS, by Supreme Court - UPSC 
recommending appointment of direct recruit and reversion of 
promotee's wrongly appointed- Promotees application before 
0 
Central Administrative Tribunal - Interim relief denied - In writ 
petition High Court staying the reversion of promotee, _though 
no such relief sought for - On appeal, held: Order of stay of 
reversion vacated - Direct recruits were entitled to be 
promoted as of right - They could not be denied promotion 
E 
by another interim order directing that the promotees could 
not be reverted - Reversion of promoteees was necessary in 
public interest as well as to give effect to the doctrine of comity 
and/or amity - 12 vacancies of /AS stated to be existing -
Direction to adjust the promotee to one of the vacant posts -
Doctrines - Doctrines of comity and amity. 
F 
Interlocutory Order - Criteria for passing such order - In 
respect of matters involving public interest - Held: An interim 
order involving public interest in public law cases must 
receive different consideration - Instant case involved matter 
G 
of public interest -
Interim order was passed without 
considering whether the appellant had any prima facie case 
or was there any balance of convenience in his favour. 
143 
H 
144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
The dispute in the instant case relates to inter-se 
dispute between direct recruits and promotees. The 
posts of Punjab Civil Services (PCS) were required to be 
filled in the ratio of 50-50 as per the existing Rules. 
Promotee Officers were brought into PCS in the Year 
B 1984. Appellants were appointed in 1986 by direct 
recruitment w.e.f. 1985. Seniority List in respect of the 
officers appointed from 1976 to 1985 was finalized in 1993. 
Direct recruits were not included therein. Seniority List in 
respect of direct recruits of 1986 was finalized in 1994. 
~ 
c They were placed below the last officer in the seniority 
list of 1993. 
Appellant No. 3 filed a writ petition challenging the 
1994 seniority list which was dismissed by High court. In 
D 
SLP thereagainst, an interim order was passed to the 
effect that any action would be subject to outcome of the 
appeal. Appeal was eventually allowed holding that 
seniority of the direct recruits and the promotees should 
be fixed by applying roster as per Rule 18 r/w Rule 21 of 
Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976. 
E 
A contempt petition was filed on the premise that the 
State failed to revise the list. Thereafter, final seniority list 
was prepared in 2007, wherein all the direct recruits 
·(appellants) were placed before respondent No. 1. State 
F Government forwarded a proposal to UPSC for review of 
the Select List. 
Some promotees, including respondent No. 1 filed 
writ petitions challenging the seniority List of 2007. An 
G 
interim order was passed by High Court to the effect that 
the selection process would not be stopped, but writ 
petitioners would not be reverted till further orders. 
.\. 
Review Selection Committee of UPSC found six 
officers eligible for promotion under the new seniority list. 
H 
•
PRABHJOT SINGH MAND & ORS. v. BHAGWANT 
145 
SINGH & ORS. 
The six other officers, including respondent No. 1, who 
A 
were promoted on the basis of old seniority list of 1993 
and as the promotion was subject to the decision of 
Supreme Court, were required to be reverted back. 
Respondent No. 1 filed application before Central 
Administrative Tribunal challenging the recommendation 
B 
of UPSC. Tribunal directed that promotions would be 
subject to final outcome of the applications. 
Respondent No. 1 filed writ petition. High Court 
granted stay on the reversion, though no such prayer 
C 
was made. The order was further modified to the effect 
that the order would not affect the officers who were 
recommended for promotion. Hence the present appeals 
against the interim order. This court by order dated 
22.10.2008 allowed the appeals modifying the impugned 
order. Stay of reversion was vacated. However, it was 
D 
directed to adjust them against any of the 12 vacancie

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