STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. ETC. versus E. PARIPOORNAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 618 · Decided: 19-08-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. ETC. 
v. 
E. PARIPOORNAM AND ORS. 
AUGUST 19, 1991 
B 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, V. RAMASWAMI AND 
D 
YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955-Rules 
35( 1), lO(a)(i)( 1), 22, 23(a)-lnter-se seniority-Determination--
Temporary s.ervice-Whether counted. 
Civil Service-Inter-se seniority-Determination-Temporary 
service-Whether counted. 
Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955-Rules 
lO(a)(i)( l), 23(a)-Temporary service-Benefits available indicated. 
The Government appointed temporary junior professors in diffe-
rent law colleges in the State under Rule lO(a)(i)(I) of the Tamil Nadu 
State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955during1971-1982. 
In 1979 the State Public Service Commission invited applications 
E 
for regular appointment of junior professors. The temporary junior 
professors and others applied for the posts. The Commission selected 25 
candidates out of whom 21 were already working as temporary junior 
professors. On 16.8.1983, the selected candidates were arranged in the 
list called "approved list" in the order o~ merit prepared by the Com-
mission which was approved by the Government on 9.12.1983. 
F 
On 27.6.1985 the State Government regularised the services of the 
21 junior professors with effect from the dates of original appointments 
as temporary junior professors. 
Some of the junior professors were promoted on 10.9.1986 and 
G 
appointed as professors. The respondents challenged that promotion 
before the High Court contending that once the temporary services 
were regularised retrospectively with effect from the date of entry in the 
t 
service, the seniority should be reckoned by giving the benefit of 
regularised service notwithstanding the ranking in the approved list. 
H 
The High Court allowing the writ petitions directed the Govern-
618 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. E. PARJPOORNAM 
619 
ment to make a proper order of promotion In the light of the views 
expressed in the judgment, against which appeals were made In this 
Court. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court, 
A 
HELD: 1. The order of regularisation of the services of the candi-
8 
dates expressly states that the inter-se seniority of the candidates would 
be in accordance with the rankings in the approved list prepared by the 
. Public Service Commission and will not be affected in any way by the 
date of regularisation of services. When the order of regularisation of 
temporary service itself denies such service for the purpose of determln· 
ing seniority, the Court cannot rouut that service for the purpose of 
seniority. [ 625B-C] 
C 
2. Since the parties in these cases appeared for selection before 
the Public Service Commission for regular recruitment as junior profes-
sors, the list of approved candidates prepared by the Public Service 
Commission in the order of merit and accepted by the Government D 
should be the basis for the determining inter-se seniority. It is not open 
to the parties to claim that their temporary service as junior professors 
upon regularisation should be counted for the purpose of determining 
the seniority in the cadre. [625D-E] 
3. Rule IO(a)(i)(l) provides for making of temporary appoint-
E 1 
ments. Such appointments are made otherwise than In accordance with 
the procedure prescribed under the Rules. [625H-626A] 
4. In the instant case, the respondents were appointed tempora-
rily and otherwise than in accordance with the Rules. They were later 
selected along with others for direct recruitment by the. Public Service F 
Commission. They were not entitled to count the temporary service for 
seniority. The services rented by the applicants under Rule lO(a)(i)(l) 
cannot be considered for the purpose of seniority as such appointment is 
a matter of stop-gap, emergency or fortuitous arrangement. Even 
though their temporary services have been regularised, since regulari-
sation was only for limited purposes. [626A-C] 
G 
A.P.M. Mayakutty etc. v. Secretary, Public Service Department 
etc., [1977] 2 SCR 937 at 942, followed. 
5. The services rendered in the temporary post is available either 
for earning increments or for commencement of probation. [625E-F] 
H 
A 
620 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 3 S.C.R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
1339-40 of 1988. 
From the judgment dated 7.7.1987 of the Madras High Court in 
W.P. Nos. 9781and10545of1986. 
B 
G.L. Sanghi, P.P. Rao, R. Mohan, R. Perumal, V. Krishna-
c 
murthy

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