PRAN KRISHNA GOSWAMI & ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 914 · Decided: 24-04-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
914 
PRAN KRISHNA GOSWAMI & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
April 24, 1985 
[R.S. PATHAK., 0. CHINNAPPA RmnY AND R.B. MISRA., JJ.] 
West Bengal Services (Detennination of Seniority) Rules 1981. Rules 4, 5 
) 
and 6: 
Proniotees and Direct Recruits-Seniority-Fixation of-Se11iorfty among 
pro1notees-Date of joining-Seniority between promo tees and direct recruiJs-
Year of joining. 
Civil Services : 
Seniority-Fixation of-Direct Recruits and Promotees Service 
Ru/e.~­
Ahsence of-General principle is seniority detern1ined on basis of continuous 
officiation in non-fortuitous vacancies. 
E 
The appellants joined the State Police Force as Constables, were promoted 
F 
G 
H1 
a CJ A&sistant Sub-Inspectors of Police, and later a:i officiating Sub-Inspectors or 
Police and confirmed as Sub-Inspectors. In the meanwhile, a large number 1 
persons were directly recruited as SulJ..Inspectors, and also confinned. All these 
persons were, ranked above the appellants in the seniority list. 
In writ petitions to the High Court, the appellants. contended that their 
seniority must be reckoned from the date of their continuous officiation as sub-
Inspectors, and that they were never considered for promotion to the neJtt higher 
post oflnspecto·r of Police, because of their delayed confirn1ation, and of the 
insistence of the Rules that they should be confirmed as Sub-Inspectors of Police 
before they could be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector of Pollice 
and that th:: offending Rule be quashed. The State supported the clain1 of the 
appellants to seniority on the basis of continuous officiation, but the direct 
recruits contested the writ petition. 
The High Court refused to recognise the claim of the appellants to senioa 
rity from the dates of their continuous officiation, on the ground that their 
promotion as officiating Sub-lnspectors of Police could only be. considered as 
promotion _to posts outside the cadre. It further held, that their seniority could 
only be reckoned from .the date of their confirmation, and that the rule pres-
• 
• 
P.K. GOSWAMI. v. WEST BENGAL 
915 
;ribiag confirmation as Sub-Inspector as a condition precedent for promotion 
to the post of Inspector of Police was not invalid. 
Allowing the Appeals , 
A 
HELD : I. The three apPellants are entitled to have the benefit of their 
. B 
continuous officiating service as Sub-Inspectors of Police counted for seniority as 
Sub-Inspectors of Police. A writ will issue, directing the state to re-fix the scniO· 
rity of the appellants and other officers similar1y situated. (939 F] 
2. It is not undisputed, that in the absence of Rules to the c9ntrary, 
regulating the question of seniority between 'direct recruits' and the •promotees' 
the general principle to be implied and followed to determine seniority is to base 
it on continuous offication in non-fortuitous vacancies. [9298] 
-
In the instant case, the officiating Sub-Inspectors of Police were obviously 
appointed to officiate in p_erminent or tempot'ary vacancies in the existing 
subordinate ranks of the Calcutta Police, governed by the Same Rules and Regu-
lations a11 other Sub-Inspectors of Police, drawing the same pay and discharging 
the same duties. There was not and there could _never be any question of 
officiating Sub-Inspectors constituting a different cadre, class or category by 
themselves. [9l4G-H) 
3. Rule 4 of the West Bengal Services (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 
1981 which deals with seniority amongst direct recruits, broadly provides that 
their relative s~niority sh:iH be according to the cadre of merit when they are 
selected at the same examination persons appointed on the basis of an earlier 
examination taking precedence over those appointed on the basis of a later 
examination. It further provides that where seniority has not been previously 
determined it shalt be determined according to the actual date of joining. Rule S 
deals with determination of seniority of promotees and provides that seniority 
of a person appointed to any post, cadre or grade shalI be determined from the 
date of joining such post, cadre or grade, which by Rule 3 (vi) means the date of 
continuous officiation in the post, cadre or grade. Rule 6 prescribes that the 
relative seniority between a promotee and a direct recruit shall be determined by 
the year of appointment or promotion of each in ~the post, cadre or grade 
irrespective of the date of joining, and that the prom

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