SHRI KAILASH CHAND AND ORS. versus LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 791 · Decided: 03-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, S.P. KURDUKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

>. 
SHRI KAILASH CHAND AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 3, 1997 
B 
(J.S. VERMA AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
. ._ 
Service Law: 
Delhi Administration Subordinate Service Rules, 1967: Rule 26(3) (as c 
amended on 19-5-1989) . 
. Seniority-Executive and Ministerial se1vices-Merger of-Provision in 
R.26(3) provided for f1Xation of seniority of officers of Executive and Mini-
sterial services in the integrated cadre on basis of length of service in their 
f om1er cadre as on the date immediately preceding the date of integration and D 
> 
rotating the names of officers appointed under Rules 5 or 6 or 19 in the 
-
Executive service with that of the officers appointed under the Ministerial 
services under. the. same Rules-If eld: The amended Rule 26 incorporated the 
principle of service jurisprudence for detennining seniority-Hence Rule 26, 
-l 
as amended, was valid-The mere fact that on account of certain fortuitous 
circumstances the officers of Ministerial branch got an unfair advantage over E 
• 
those belonging to the Executive branch or chances of promotion to those in 
Executive branch were remote because of shorter length of service of the latter, 
not by itself a ground to· quash the said provisio1t-'Rota' rule-Pennissible 
.._ 
and was a matter within the domain of executive decision . 
F 
The Executive and Ministerial Class III services of the Delhi Ad-
ministration were merged by a notification and the seniority in the in-
tegrated cadre was to be computed on the basis of total length of service 
in the respective services. Subsequently, Rule 26 of the Delhi Administra-
tion Subordinate Service Rules, 1967 was amended on 19-5-198~. Rule G 
26(3), as amended, provided for fixation of the seniority of Officers of 
Executive and Ministerial services in the integrated cadre on the basis of 
'"' 
their seniority in their former cadre as on the date immediately preceding 
r 
' 
the date of integration and rotating the names of the Officers appointed 
... 
under the same Rules. The petitioners filed a writ petition before this 
Court challenging the validity of the amended Rule 26(3). 
H 
791 
~ 
792 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
-" 
HELD: 1. I. The amendment made in Rule 26 of the Delhi Ad-
ministration Subordinate Service Rules, 1967 does not depart from the 
principle of reckoning seniority computed on the basis of total length of 
B 
service in the cadre. The principle of 'rota' incorporated in Rule 26(3) of 
the Rules is permissible and is a matter within the domain of executive 
decision. There is thus rio vice in Rule 26 of the Rules as amended on 
19-5-19~9. [796-A-B] 
.. -
1.2. The mere fact that on account of certain fortuitous circumstan-
c ces, the Officers who belong to the Ministerial branch have got an unfair 
advantage over the Officers belonging to the Executive branch and the 
chances of promotion to those in Executive branch are remote because of 
shorter length of service of the latter in this cadre by itself is not a ground 
to strike down the settled principle of service jurisprudence for determin-
ing seniority. [796-C] 
D 
• 
CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Writ Petition 
-
(C) No. 525 of 1990 Etc. Etc. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
E 
M.S. Ganesh, H.L. Aggarwal, Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Dr. M.P. Raju, 
(ME. Mary Scaria) for S. P. Sharma, Ms. Binu Tamta, S.A. Matto, Raj 
Kumar Gupta, H.P. Sharma, Rajesh, (B. Krishna Prasad) (NP) and S. N. 
Terdol for the appearing parties. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
J.S. VERMA, J. The main point for decision in this writ petition and 
the connected matters is the constitutional validity of Rule 26 of the Delhi 
Administration subordinate Service Rules, 1967 (for short "Rules") as 
amended on May 19, 1989. A brief background of this challenge is neces-
G sary to indicate the narrow compass in which the controversy now survives. 
The Executive and Ministerial Class III services were merged by 
notification dated December 4, 1980 and the seniority in the integrated 
"' 
cadre was to be reckoned on the basis of their placement in the cadre. A 
• 
writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court to challenge this act of 
H merger of the Executive and Ministerial branches as well as Rule 26 of the 
• 
< • 
KAILASH CHAND v. L.G. OF DELHI [J.S. VERMA, J.] 
793 
said Rules which provided for determination of the seniority on merger of A 
the two branches.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.