TEJ NARAIN TIW ARY versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 11 · Decided: 18-02-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT, G.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
-1 .. 
-
TEJ NARAIN TIW ARY 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 18, 1993 
[P.B. SAWANT AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] 
Regularisation-Date of-Appellant appointed as Special Officer by 
Bihar School Education Board on 6.B.69--Post abolished in April 1971-Suit 
filed by Appellant-In pursuance of compromise between the parties, Board 
appointed Appellant to regular post of Section Officer and regularised the 
appointment w.e.f. 6.8.69. 
Held, there was compulsory transfer from one post to the other, or 
alternatively, amalgamation of the two posts--Regularisation w.e.f. 6.8.69 
justified. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
By an order dated 16th August 1969, the appellant was appointed by 
respondent 2 • the Ribar School Examination Board • as a Special Officer 
(Stores) for a period not exceeding six months in the pay scale of Rs. 
300-20-400-EB-20-500, with usual allowances. The services were, however, 
continued till 10th March, 1971, when it was intimated that the said post 
of Special Officer would be abolished with effect from Isl April 1971, and E 
consequently bis services were terminated. The appellant filed a suit and 
obtained an injunction against the abolition of the post and the termina· 
lion of bis services. In the suit, a compromise was arrived at between the 
Board and the appellant, whereby be was appointed as Section Officer in 
the General Cadre and bis pay as Special Officer was to be protected. F 
Pursuant to this compromise, the Board by order dated 20th March, 1972 
appointed him on the vacant post of Section Officer, with a personal pay 
of Rs. 70 per month. Later, by an order dated 11.11.86, respondent No. 2 
regularised the appointment from the date of his appointment as Special 
Officer viz. 16.8.69. However, respondent No. 5 promoted to one of the 
posts of Section officers on 27-8-70, contended that the seniority given to G 
the appellant in the post of Section Officer w.e.f. 16·8-69, i.e. from the date 
of his 1ppointment as Special Officer was illegal. In the Seniority list of 
Section Officers prepared by respondent No, 2, the appellant was shown 
above respondent no. 5 and he was granted promotion to the post of Asstt. 
Secretary on 20th March, 1982, and to that of Deputy Secretary on 29.11.87. H 
11 
12 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Against the said list or seniority, respondent No. 5 tiled a writ petition in 
\.~ ...... -
the High Court, formally challenging the order of dt. 11th Nov., 1986 in 
terms of which the inter se seniority list was prepared. The High Court held 
that the post of Special Officer occupied by the appellant was a temporary 
post, which was abolished, and therefore, he would have to rank below 
B respondent No. 5. The appellant came to this Court. 
Allowing the Appeal, 
HELD: The approach of the High Court was not correct. The appel-
!ant was appointed lo a higher post with a higher salary scale. He was in 
c 
fact compulsorily transferred from that post to the post of Section Officer 
and after that transfer by the same order of 20th March, 1972, the post of 
Special Officer was abolished. The order is also capable of being inter-
""'· 
preted as an order or amalgamation of the ex-cadre post or a Special 
Officer with the cadre post of Section Officer. [15•'-G] 
D 
The consequence of both the interpretations of the said order is the 
same, viz. that the appellant would get seniority from the date or his 
appointment as Special Officer. [lSG] 
I 
It is true that there is nothing on record except the order or 20th 
March, 1972, to show that lo the temporary post or Special Officer which ,
E was created for the first time on 16th August, 1969, that the appointment 
of appellant was ever regularised and the appellant was appointed regular-
ly to the same. However, on this aspect, we must go by the intention 
revealed in the resolutions and orders of the Board itself. The Board's 
intention is clear. It treated the post as regular. The appellant was ap· 
F 
pointed to it in a substantive vacancy and in accordance with the condition 
governing it. There is accordingly nothing, which militates against the 
-. 
seniority given to the appellant. [16A-Dl 
The Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association and Ors. 
v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 1607 and State of Bihar & Ors. 
G etc. v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath & Ors., [1991) Suppl. 1 SCC 334, referred 
' 
. 
to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 690 of 
>--
1993. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dat

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