RAM SEWAK PRASAD versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 884 · Decided: 11-07-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM SEWAK PRASAD 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
JULY 11, 1991 
t
8 
,, 
[KULDIP SINGH AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Excise Service Rules, 1967-Rule 3(ix) 
and 5 and Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Excise Service Rules, 1983-Rule 
3(g), 3(j), 5 and 21( ])-Interpretation of-Excise Inspector-Appoin-
ted on ad hoc basis-Held entitled to claim seniority and promotion 
c 
vis-a-vis those who were appointed later in point of time. 
The petitioner was appointed as Excise Sub-Inspector in February 
1964 in the State of U .P. and was later promoted as Excise Inspector on 
ad hoc basis on February 24, 1972. He was confmned as Excise Sub-
D 
Inspector w .e.r. April 1, 1%7. Though promoted on ad hoc basis, the 
petitioner bas continuously been working as Excise Inspector since 
February 24, 1972. Ragbubir Singh and Ram Dban, respondents are 
direct recruits to the post of Excise Inspector and tbay bad joined the 
cadre later in point of time than the petitioner i.e. after 24.2.1972. They 
were promoted to the post of Excise Superintendent on 29.9.1983 and 
E 
the petitioner was Ignored. Being aggrieved the petitioner bas filed this 
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. 
According to the State and other respondents, the petitioner's 
promotion to the post of Excise Inspector being on ad hoc basis was 
against the 1%7 rules, be continues to be an ad hoc appointed and as 
F 
such is not a member of the Excise Inspectors service constituted under 
the rul2s. His nanie bas not been shown In the seniority list of Excise 
I 
Inspectors. According to them bis case has rightly not been considered 
for further promotion. On the other band, It is contended on behalf or 
the petitioner that the 1%7 Rules in as much as they confine the channel 
of promotion to Tari Inspectors and Clerks were wholly arbitrary and 
as such violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is submit-
G 
ted on bis behalf that the petitioner is, in any case, entitled to be pro-
moted substantively to the cadre of Excise Inspectors under 1983 rules 
and be is also entitled to fixation of seniority by counting bis entire 
, 
service as Excise Inspector from 1972 onwards. Respondents concede 
that the petitioner can be appointed under 1983 rules, but contend that 
H 
be is not entitled to the benefit of past service for purposes of seniority. 
884 
RAM SEWAK v, STATE OF U.P. 
885 
Allowing the writ petition this Court 
HELD: When the 1967 rules were enforced on May 24, 1967 there 
was in existence a permanent cadre of Excise Suh-Inspectors. The 
nature of duties of both the cadres were similar. The Excise Inspectors, 
on molasses duty of the ranges, used to supervise the work of Excise 
A 
Sub-Inspectors under them. The Excise Suh-Inspectors were thus 
B 
natural contenders for the post of Inspectors. There was no justification 
whatsoever with the framers of the 1967 rules to have kept the Excise 
Sub-Inspectors out of the channel of promotion to the post of Excise 
Inspectors. Prime facie there is no escape from the conclusion that the 
Excise Sub-Inspectors were dealt with in an arbitrary manner by tl\e 
framers of 1967 rules. [890H-89JB] 
It is not disputed that under the 1983 rules, the petitioner is 
eligible to be promoted and appointed as Excise Inspector. [ 891 C-D I 
The 1983 rules came into force on March 24, 1983. There is 
nothing on the record to show as to why the petitioner was not con-
D 
sidered for promotion under the 1983 rules till today. Inaction on the 
part of the State Government is wholly unjustified. The petitioner has 
been made to suffer for no fault of his. He has been serving the State Govern-
ment as Excise Inspector since February 24, 1972 satisfactorily. [891E] 
Rule 2 l(i) of the 1983 rules specifically permits substantive 
E 
appointment to the cadre of Excise Inspectors with back date. In all 
probability the provision of back date appointment was made in the 
~ 
1983 rules to do justice to persons like the petitioner. The petitioner is 
eligible under the rules to be appointed as Excise Inspector by way of . 
promotion. Accordingly the Court directed that the petitioner shall be 
deemed to be appointed by way of promotion as substantive Excise 
F 
Inspector under the 1983 rules with effect from February 24, 1972. The 
petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of his entire period of service as 
Excise Inspector from February 24, 1972 towards fixation of bis senio-
rity in the cadre of Excise 

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