R. S. MAKASHI & ORS. versus I. M. MENON & ORS.

Citation: [1982] 2 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 08-12-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.D. KOSHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
~ ·'·l '. 
6~ 
R. S. MAKASHI & ORS. 
,, 
i 
l ~ 
• 
I. M; MENON &·'OR.S. 
(~ 'I 
:i .• 
. 
· .... ,. 
'Dec~inber 8, l9BI 
[A.D. KOSHAL, V. J}ALAKRISHNA ERADI AND 
: ;R .. B.: !\{is~A, JJ.J . . . 
.· 
,;· ,; 
•• j'-.., i-- '\ 
.; .... , 
Constitution of India Article 309-Proviso-Power of government to frame 
rules of inter se seniority of persons borrowed from different sources-Exp/ain.ed. 
P~ocedure-Defoy of eight /ears ;ii filing' writ petitkm-P;titioner sukin; 
redress for alleged infringenleiit of fqndamental righi_:.Ifigh Court, if could 1101 
dismiss o'n grounds of !aches. 
· 
~ 
'~ 
To man the various posts in the newly ·~stablished :Bombay Rationing 
Organisation (BRO) the ·State 
Gove.rnment sanctioned a skelton staff. In 
addition to the sanctioned staff, the' existia'g' staff of the erstwhile adhoc organi-
sation of Controller of Foodgrains (CFD) were taken into the BRO. Since it 
was considered necessary to have experienced staff for manning higher posts in 
the .new Organisation the Government ·borrowed the· services of experienced 
bands from .. other departments. Since, as work expanded, it was found that the 
number of persons brought on deputation to .fill up aJ.I the new ·posts in· the 
BRO were not enough, some persons were directly recruited into the BRO. 
In 19.68 the State .Gm1ernment ·issue<j, under ,the proviso to. Article 309 of 
the,Constitution, the :Bombay Rationing Org;misation {F'ixation of·~Seriiority) 
Rules, 1968. laying down the principles ·c10 .be applied fori;the .fixlition'·of senio·· 
rity of p,ersons working in the ;BRO. .The rules were· given retrospective .effect 
from the date of the Gov.ernment. resolu.tion. sanctioning ·the.· skelton-.staff.for 
introduction of s,\atutory rl1-tionipg, . · r:. · ,, ; 
-; • 'J ~'. •• 
' 
. ,; H 
~- ·_, • 
Rule 4(a) provided that seniority of a releas~d government servant and a 
merged government servant in · the cadre of ~enior clerk etc., as also ·a person' 
who was initially appointed as a clerk etc. in the Bombay Rationing Organisa· 
tion and subsequently promoted to the said cadre shall be determined with 
reference to the dates which shall be fixed after deducting two years from the 
length of continuous service. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Clause (cl of this rule provided that senio~ity ()f g0vernrµent servants in the 
cadre Of Senlor clerks fixed OD tb~ basis of rules (a) and 
0
(b)' Of this rule shall be 
merged and refixed with reference to the dates from which their seniority is 
H 
determii;ied according to th~ pr,inciples in 1rules 4(a) and (b), 
• 
l 
i·. '··d 
A 
7o 
stJi>kilME cotJkt REPORTS 
iI982] 2 s.c.~. 
The proviso to rule 7 provided that where there is a clash of principles 
contained in the government resolution with the seniority inter se in the former 
department shall prevail. 
Based on the principles laid down in 1968 Rules the Controller ofRation-
B 
ing had drawn up a gradation list of Rationing Inspectors, Senior Clerks and 
Deputy Accountants working in the BRO as on April 1, 1968. 'the list was 
exhibited on the notice board of the head office of BRO, regional offices and 
Rationing Offices and was communicated to the individual members of the 
staff. 
A final gradation list was thereafter drawn up as on April I, 1968. Some-
C 
time later on April 9, 1973 another provisional gradation list as on April I, 1972 
was drawn up and published as before. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Siilce at that tim: there were many employees who were temporarily recrui-
ted ,pending allotment of candidates selected 
by 
the State Public Service 
Commission rules were relaxed and their appointmel)ts were regularised subject 
to the condition that seniority of such non P.S.C. candidates on whom the bene-
fit of continuance of service was conferred was to be fixed only with reference to 
the date of issue of the resolution, as a result of which candidates selected by the 
Public Service Commission already working in the varioqs departments were 
treated as seniors in relation to the non P.S.C. p~rsons covered by the resolu-
tion. 
A provisional gradation list as on April 1, 1974 was published following 
the seniority principles laid down by the BRO in 1968 and those laid down iri 
the resolution concerning non P.S.C. candidates. 
In January 1976, respondents 1 to 22 who wer~ directly recruited in the 
former CFD but subsequently absorbed in the BRO challenged in a writ petition 
the validity of the two gradation lists contending that in preparing these

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