RAMESH K.SHARMA AND ANR. versus RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 23-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMESH K. SHARMA AND ANR. 
\( 
RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES AND ORS. 
i'.JOVEMBER 23, 2000 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Seniority-Inter,., seniority between direct recruits in Commercial Tax 
C Department and <: •J/us personnel absorbed from land and Building Tax 
department-Sutpu1s personnel held subswntive post in the previous 
department-- Whether to be considered for the purpose of seniority-Held, 
yes as the personnel were appointed after a regular selection by a duly 
constituted committee-Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus 
D Personnel) Rules, 1969-Rules 3(a), 7 and 15. 
Appellants are direct recruits to the post of Commercial Tax Inspector 
and the recruitment to the said post is governed by the Rajasthan Commercial 
Taxes Subordinate Service (General Branch) Rules, 1975. Respondents, who 
were originally appointed to the Land and Building Tax Department on 
E temporary basis on 1.3.1974 and later made permanent on 27.2.1981, being 
found to be in surplus, were absorbed in Commercial Tax Department as 
Commercial Tax Inspectors in 1982 under the provisions of Absorption of 
Surplus Personnel Rules, 1969 (Absorption Rules). In the seniority lists for 
the cadre of Commercial Tax Inspector Grade JI prepared by the State 
F Government from time to time, the appellants were shown senior to the 
absorbed-respondents. The respondents questioned the seniority list before 
Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal quashed the seniority lists 
holding that the appointment of the respondents in their previous department 
was substantive in nature right from inception in 1974 and that their services 
from 1974 would be counted for the purpose of seniority. The appellants filed 
G Writ Petitions before the High Court, which were dismissed for the same 
reasons. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the initial 
appointments of the respondents in 1974 in the Land and Building Tax 
H 
Department are on ad hoc basis in terms of Ruic 3(a) of the Absorption Rules. 
14 
R.K. SHAR'-'IA v. RA.IASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES 
35 
The appellants further contended that as per Rule 7, the respondents were A 
not holding any post on substantive basis and consequently any period prior 
to 1981, when they were made permanent, should not be counted for the 
purpose of seniority under the Absorption Rules. 
The respondents, on the other hand, contended that their appointments 
w.e.f. 1974 were ofa substantive nature and should be counted for the purpose B 
of seniority under Rule 15(1) of the Absorption Rules. The respondents 
further contended that since there was a proper selection before appointment 
and were made permanent thereafter, the services with effect fro.m the date of 
their initial recruitment should be taken into account for the purpose of 
~eniority in the absorbed cadre. 
Dismissin~; the appeals, the Court 
HELD : I.I. The private respondents having been absorbed as 
Commercial Tax Officer Grade II, their seniority in the cadre of Commercial 
Tax Officer Grade II will have to be determined on the basis of Rule 15(1) of 
c 
the Absorption of Surplus Personnel Rules, 1969 (Absorption Rules). It is D 
not disputed that the posts, which these private respondents were holding under 
the Land and Building Tax Department were equivalent posts of the posts of 
Commercial Tax Officer Grade II. In Service Jurisprudence, a post could be 
temporary or permanent or created for a definite period to meet a definite 
contingency. !fan incumbent is appointed, after due process of selection, either E 
to a temporary post or a permanent post and such appointment not being either 
stop-gap or fortuitous, it should be held to be on substantive basis. But if the 
post itself is created only for a limited period to meet a particular contingency 
and appointment thereto is made, not through any process of selection, but on 
a stop-gap basis, then such an appointment cannot be held to be on substantive 
basis. The expression "substantive basis" is used in Service Jurisprudence F 
in contra-distinction with ad hoc or purely stop-gap or fortuitous. It is also 
quite apparent in Service Jurisprudence that there exists difference between 
a substantive post as contra-distinguished from temporary post and 
appointment of an incumbent to these posts could be made either on substantive 
basis or on ad hoc or stop-gap basis. This being the legal position and in the G 
case in hand, it cannot but be

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