SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. versus STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 866 · Decided: 12-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
A 
B 
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 866 
SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7537-7541 of 2009) 
NOVEMBER 12, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Service Law- Seniority- lnter-se seniority-Between Sub-
Inspectors (General) Sl(g) and Sub-Inspectors (Stenographers) 
Sl(St)-.Sl(g) challenging seniOrity of Sl(St) over them -
C Challenge made after 8-9 years from the date of appointment 
- Tribunal relying on ·a judgment passed by it in a similar case 
- The judgment relied on was passed on the basis of letters 
from Government departments - Writ petition before High 
· Court- Partly allowed - On appeal, held: Challenge barred by 
delayllaches - Reliance upon the said judgment was 
D misconceived - The judgment to be treated as judgment in 
personem - The said case filed at a belated stage - In absence 
E 
· of Rules or Executive Instructions, Tribunal could not have 
determined the inter-:se seniority - Letters cannot be treated 
as executive instructions and hence cannot be relied upon 
Delay/Laches -
Delay in challenging seniority -
Entertainability of the challenge - Held: Seniority can be 
challenged within a reasonable period - Challenge beyond 
such period needs to be explained - Court exercising public 
law jurisdiction does not encourage agitation of stale claims, 
F where right of third party is affected. 
lnterpreta1ion of Statutes - Interpretation of Rules and 
Executive Instructions - Administrative interpretation thereof 
~ Provides guidelines for interpreting them - They may be 
·. accepted, if not violative of the Rules - However, the court is 
G not bound to, accept the mistaken construction of the statute. 
H 
Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of 'Contemporanea 
expositio'- Applicability of 
In a case (Parasu.ram's case) involving inter-se seniority 
866 
.. 
r 
i 
Al, 
' 
I 
; 
.. 
f L.-;
-..... 
*'.. 
~-
··~.. 
·-
. 
' 
I 
t 
-
r 
SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. v. STATE 
867 
OF ORISSA & ORS. 
between the cadre of Sub-Inspectors (General) [Sl(g)] and 
A 
Sub-Inspectors (Stenographers) [Sl(St)], Administrative 
Tribunal directed the department to consider seniority of 
the applicant-Sl(g), over two officers-Sl(St) keeping in view 
the letter issued by the Home Department and the law 
Deptt. of the State, according to which, seniority of the 
8 
Sl(St) would be determined after their entry into General 
Wing after passing the Training Course. 
Appellants-Sl(g) in the present cases, filed 
applications before Administrative Tribunal. The 
applications were disposed of, relying on the decision in 
C 
Parsuram's case. Aggrieved by the judgments passed by 
the Tribunal, Sl(St) filed writ petitions. High Court partly' 
allowed the writ petitions. It directed to reconsider the. 
case of promotion of Sl(g) to the post of Inspectors, and if· 
it was found that they had been placed below Sl(St), they · 
should be granted promotion (if they fulfilled minimum D 
eligibility criteria) from the date their counterparts in the 
other wing had been promoted. However, directions 
issued by the Tribunal to prepare the gradation list of Sl(St) 
and Sl(g) in accordance with the dates of passing out of 
the Sub-Inspector training course, was quashed. Hence . E 
the present appeals. 
· 
Appellants contended that courts below could not 
have relied on the letters written by Home Department and 
by Ministry of Law, as they were merely opinions and 
could not be treated as Executive Instructions; that in 
F 
absence of statutory rules for determining the inter-se 
seniority, long-standing practice for determination of such 
seniority, could not be disturbed at a belated stage, while 
the Sl(St) had further been given two promotions and that 
was not challenged; and that High Court erred in not taking 
into consideration the distinction between eligibility for G 
promotion and seniority. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Seniority and eligibility for promotion are 
two different concepts altogether, In absence of any · 
statutory rules, the executive instructions for fixing the 
H: 
. 
. 
868 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL:) S.C.R. 
A inter se seniorify of two wings of the Sub-Inspectors could 
have been issued by the State Government. Admittedly, no 
such executive instruction has ever been issued. The 
letters issue~ by the Government Departments, being 
\ merely opinion of the Departments could not be conferred 
·.f3\ .· ~~~~~~~~ho:Ar~~:~ti~~:·~~·~tr

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