SUDHIR KUMAR ATREY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 835 · Decided: 26-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
835
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 835
835
SUDHIR KUMAR ATREY
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6460 of 2021)
OCTOBER 26, 2021
[AJAY RASTOGI AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]
Military Engineering Service (Non Industrial class III and IV
Posts) Rules, 1971: The Army Headquarter directed on 09.12.1982
the Chief Engineers of all the five commands to initiate recruitment
of Group ‘C” personnel – Process of selection was initiated in all
the five commands and separate select list in the order of merit in
each of the respective commands was published in the year 1983 –
Dispute arose in respect of seniority of candidates who were selected
and placed in the select panel dated 29.06.1983 of the Western
Command but were appointed from April 1987 to April 1988 in the
Western Command – Their seniority was determined by the
authorities on the basis of their date of joining – Their grievance
was that they were the candidates of the select panel of June 1983,
their seniority is to be determined in the order of merit regardless to
their date of joining – Held: In the matter of adjudging seniority of
the candidates selected in one and the same selection, placement in
the order of merit can be adopted as a principle for determination
of seniority but where the selections are held separately by different
recruiting authorities, the principle of initial date of appointment/
continuous officiation may be the valid principle to be considered
for adjudging inter se seniority of the officers in the absence of
any rule or guidelines in determining seniority to the contrary –
The appointment of individual which was made at a later stage after
five years from the select panel notified on 29.06.1983 in the Western
Command is not countenanced but in the peculiar circumstances,
the dead issue is not opened at this stage – The authorities must be
held accountable for their arbitrary action and save the institution
from uncalled for litigation – Service law – Seniority.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
Held: 1.1 It is an admitted position that at the given point
of time, selections were held independently by the respective
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
Chief Engineer to whom powers have been delegated to hold
recruitment in their respective Commands, but after the
appointments are made, a consolidated inter se seniority list of
the Commands at All India level was to be notified and since
officers are holding transferable posts could be transferred from
one Command to the other in exigency of service and indisputedly
there is no provision under the Scheme of 1971 Rules or
guidelines which would govern the seniority of persons who are
appointed in their respective Commands, how their inter se
combined seniority of Commands at All India level is to be
published. [Para 7][842-C-E]
1.2. Since 1971 Rules were silent in determining seniority
inter se of the candidates selected in their respective Command
at the stage when a combined All India seniority list is to be
prepared and for determination of seniority, reliance was placed
on the DoPT OM dated 3rd July, 1986 which broadly examined
the determination of seniority between the direct recruits and
promotees, seniority of transferees, seniority of special type of
cases. The OM dated 3rd July, 1986 deals with determination of
seniority of direct recruits who are selected and placed in one
and the same select panel by the order of merit in the select list
and those who are selected in the earlier selection shall remain
senior to such persons who are appointed in the later selection.
[Paras 9, 11][843-A-B; 844-B-C]
1.3 In the facts of the instant case when all the five
Commands have initiated the process of selection independently
at the same time pursuant to the directives of the Engineer-in-
Chief, Army Headquarters dated 9th December, 1982 while
adjudging their combined inter se seniority list, the principle of
initial date of appointment/continuous officiation may be the valid
principle to be considered for determination of inter se seniority
in the absence of any rule or guidelines to the contrary. [Para
19][846-F-H]
Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association
v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 715 :
[1990] 2 SCR 900 – followed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
837
1.4 The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in its
impugned judgment has expressed its conformity with the view
expressed by the Tribunal so far as the determination of combined
inter se seniority at

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