RAM JANAM SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 316 · Decided: 25-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N.P. SINGH

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAM JANAM SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
JANUARY 25, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.) 
Uttar Pradesh Non-technical (Class-II) Service (Reservation of vacan-
cies for Demobilised Officers) Rules, 1973--Rules 3(1) and 6-Validity of. 
C 
Uttar Pradesh Non-technical (Class-II/Group 'B') Services (Appoint-
ment of Demobilised Officers) Rules 1980: Rules 3(b) & 5-Validity of. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14-Demobilised Defence Of-
ficers-Officers recmited during emergency and officers recmited during nor-
mal times-Classification for the purpose of preferential seniority in State 
D Service to former only-Held not arbitrary. 
Article 136-Special Leave Petitiort-Locus standi to file-Affected 
party though not impleaded in High Court proceedings-Can file petition. 
E 
Rule 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Non-Technical (Class-II) Service 
(Reservation of Vacancies for the Demobilised Officers) Rules, 1973 as well 
as Rule 3(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Non-Technical (Class-II/Group 'B') 
Services (Appointment of Demobilised Officers) Rules, 1980 provided for 
special seniority for Disabled Defence Service Officers Emergency Com· 
missioned Officers and the Short Service Commissioned Officers of the 
F 
Armed Forces, who were commissioned on or after November 1, 1962 but 
before January 10, 1968 and again those who were commissioned on or 
after December 3, 1971 and released at any time thereafter. 
Respondent-2, who had been recruited for Short Service Commis· 
G 
sion in the Army on 6th September, 1970 and released on 3rd December, 
1975 joined the U.P. State Civil Servi!::'e on 16th July, 1982, filed a writ in 
the Allahabad High Court without impleading the appellant who had 
entered into State Service before the respondent • contending that Rule 
3(1) 1973 Rules and Rule 3(b) of 1980 Rules were violative of Article 14 of 
the Constitution as they arbitrarily denied the benefit of special seniority 
H to Demobilised Officers commissioned to Armed Forces after January 10, 
316 
-
' --
)'-
•
RAMJANAM v. STATEOFU.P. 
317 
1968 aed before December 3, 1971. The High Court allowed the petition A 
directing the authorities concerned not to give effect to the provisions of 
Rule 3(1) of the 1973 Rules and Rule 3(b) of 1980 Rules for excluding the 
period from 11.1.1968 to 2.12.1971 in the matter of determination of the 
seniority of the respondent and to grant him the benefit of Army Service 
while faxing his seniority. Similar orders h~d been passed by the High 
Court in other cases also against which State preferred appeals in this 
Court. 
B' 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant 
that officers commissioned during the period of emergency being a class 
by themselves, there was justification to give them a preferential treatment C 
in matter of seniority. But, there was no conceivable reason to extend the 
same benefit in matters of seniority to persons who had been commis-
sioned during normal times. The State also supported the stand of the 
appellant. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court was in error in treating the respondent 
who had been commissioned on 6th September, 1970 after the revocation 
D 
of emergency, to belong to the same class as those who had been commis-
sioned after November 1, 1962 but before January 10, 1968. The plea that E 
even persons, who joined army service after cessation of foreign aggression 
and revocation of emergency, have to be treated like persons, who have 
joined army service during emergency, due to foreign aggression, is a futile 
plea and should not have been accepted by the High Court. Therefore, the 
respondent is not entitled to the benefit of Rule 3(1) of 1973 Rules or Rule 
3(b) of 1980 Rules. [325-E-G; 326-A] 
2. The seniority of an officer in service is determined with reference 
F 
to the date of his entry in the service, which will be consistent with the 
requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Of course, if the 
circumstances so require, a group of persons can be treated a class 
separate from the rest, for any preferential or beneficial treatment while G 
faxing their seniority. But whether such group of persons belong to a 
special class for any special treatment, in matters of seniority, has to be 
decided on objective consideration and on taking into account relevant 
factors which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 
Normally, 

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