SWAPAN KUMAR PAL AND ORS. ETC. versus SAMITABHAR CHAKRABORTY AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 641 · Decided: 09-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
SWAPAN KUMAR PAL AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
SAMITABHAR CHAKRABORTY AND ORS. 
MAY 9, 2001 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND B.N. AGRAWAL. JJ.] 
B 
Service Law 
Roil11•c(\' Es1ahlish111e111 /\la1111al-Paragraphs 213. 21./(cj(V) and 302-
1 nter-se Se11iority-Be/1l'ee11 ad hoc promo/ees and regular promotces_.:.. C 
IV/w1her ad hoc period to he co11111cd for se11iori1y-Held. 110--Seniorily cm1 
be counted 011~v ,fi-0111 the date of" regular pro111otio11, afier due process of 
selection. 
The respondents were promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on ad hoc 
basis as no regular recruitment could be made by holding suitability test. D 
Appellants, the in-service graduates, were declared suitable for promotion to 
the grade of Senior Clerk and were given regular promotion. Thereafter 
suitability test of the respondents was held and they were declared suitable 
for the post of Senior Clerk and were given regular promotion. Railway 
Administration prepared seniority list as per Para 302 of Railway E 
Administration Manual, wherein appellants were shown senior to the 
respondents in the cadre of Senior Clerk on the basis of the date of regular 
promotion, after due process of selection, not taking into account the ad hoc 
service of the respondents. 
Respondents challenged the Yalidity of Seniority list before the Centi;-al F 
Administrative Tribunal which quashed the seniority list, holding that the ad 
hoc service of the respondents would be counted f~~ their seniority as the 
suitability test was delayed by the Railway Administration over which the 
respondents had no control. Thus the respondents were declared senior. to 
the appellants. 
Subsequent to the judgment of the Tribunal and during pendency of 
appeal to this court the competent authority regularised the ad hoc officiating 
promotion, as a one time measure, as a special case. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, appellants and Railway Administration contended 
641 
1-1 
642 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
12001] 3 S.C.R. 
A that the period of service rendered by the respondents as ad hoc appointees 
cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority, the criteria for determination 
of seniority being the date of regular promotion after due process, and the 
ad hoc promotion can be held to be de hors the promotion rules. Respondents 
contended that the promotees having been promoted on ad hoc basis and 
B being otherwise duly qualified to hold the promotional post and having passed 
the suitability test later on, the past services rendered on ad hoc basis has 
to be given credit; and that on account of lapses on the part of the 
administration in not holding the suitability test at regular intervals, as 
required under the relevant provisions of the Railway Establishment Manual, 
the respondents cannot be made to suffer by not taking into account the ad 
C hoc period of service for the purpose of seniority; and that the competent 
authority, having approved the regularisation of ad hoc officiating promotion, 
as a one time measure and as a special case, during pendency of the appeal, 
it would be justified to treat that period for the purpose of seniority. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
D 
HELD : 1. 1. The seniority of promotees in the cadre of Senior Clerk 
can be counted only from the date of regular promotion, after due process 
of selection. Though under Clause (V) of paragraph 214(c), a suitability test 
is required to be held at interval, which should not be less than six months, 
but in a case where such suitability test had not been held, as in the case 
E in hand and persons are promoted from the Junior Clerk to Senior Clerk, 
on the basis of their seniority on ad hoc basis. 1651-B-CI 
F 
G.P. Doval and Ors. v. The Chief Secretmy, Government of UP. 01id 
Ors., IJ 9851 1 SCR 70; S.L. Kaul and Ors. v. Secret01y to Governmeni of 
India, Ministry oflnformation and Broadcasting, New Delhi and Ors., I 19891 
Suppl )' SCC 147; Devendra Narayan Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and 
Ors., 119961 1 SCC 342 and Sura) Prakash Gupta and Ors. v. State of J & 
Kand Ors., 120001 7 SCC 561, distinguished. 
1.2. Though the respondents who got their ad hoc promotion, were 
G later on found. suitable in the test, and had been continuing from their 
respective date of ad hoc promotion till they were regularised, after being 
selected through due process, but that by itself cannot confer a right on them 
to claim the ad hoc period of service to be tagged on, for the purpose of their 
seniority inasmuch as there i

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