TEJINDER SINGH SANDHU versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 716 · Decided: 25-04-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

716 
A 
TEJINDER SINGH SANDHU 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
April 25, 1978 
B 
[Y. V. CHANDRACIIUD, C.J., D. A. DESAI AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Seniority and Promotion, claim to-Whether a iunior in Cla.<is 11 service, 
who by a chancy circumstance joined earlier in the Class I post and co1npleted 
his probation in that post before his sPniors, clahn seniority in Class I post for 
furlher promotion-Seniority in Class II has to prevail in ranking u•hen several 
officers are appointed to Class I on an ad hoc basis and also con1p{eted their 
probation and when per1nanent vacancies occur in that cadre of Class !-
Applicability of Govt. Memo No. 9448-Agr. 1(1)65/1583 dt. 13-4-66 and 
•~-
Punjab-Agri. Service Rules, 1947, 10 to 16. 
, ,........__..._ 
The appellant was junior to Respondents 2 and 3 in the Class ll Punjab 
Agricultural Service. 
On August 2, 1965 the appellant and Respondent No. 3 
were pron1oted on an ad hoc basis as Deputy Directors of Agriculture a post 
borne on the cadre of Class I service. The appellant took charge of the post 
on August 4, 1965 being at headquarters, while respondents No. 3 joined on 
18·8·65. Respondent No. 2 who was senior to Respondent No. 3 and the appel-
lant could not be promoted earlier as he was on deputation with the Punjab 
Agricultural University and he was promoted on 22-2·67 i.e. after his return 
to parent department. The appellant, Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 
therefore completed their probation on 3-8-1967, 21-2-1969 and 1-3-1968 res-
pectively. 
On 14-10-71, the Government of 
Punjab published a 
tentative 
seniority list in which the appellant was shown as junior to resoondents 2 and 3. 
On that basis respondents 2 and 3 were promoted as Joint Directors of Agri-
culture \V.e.f. 10-7-1973 and 16-7-73 respectively. 
As his representation for 
considering his claim for seniority and promotion by virtue of his long conti-
nuous service in Class II post and also his earlier completion of probation that 
the respondents failed, the appell<'].nt filed a writ petition in the High Court on 
16-8-1973 contending that the promotion of respondents 2 and 3 to the post of 
Joint Director was illegal being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution and 
den1anding that in recognition of his superior claim arising by virtue of seniority, 
he should be pron1oted and confirmed in the post of Joint Director. The High 
Court disn1issed the Writ Petition but granted a certificate of fitness to appeal to 
this Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court was right in taking the view that respondents 
2 and 3 were entitled to be appointed as Joint Directors of Agriculture 
in 
preference to the appellant on the basis of their seniority. [720 DJ 
2. Since all of then1 were appointed to Class I on an ad hoc basis and 
since they had all completed their probation in Class I post, when permanent 
vacancies o.:cnrred in that cadre, their seniority in Class II has to prevail in their 
ranking in Class I. 
By that criterion, the appellant must take his place below 
Respondents 2 and 3. [719 B-C} 
3. (a) What governs the appellant is not the Government Memorandum 
dated 13-4-1966, but the rules contained in the Punjab Agricultural Service 
Class T, Rules, 1947. Rule 16 provides that seniority of men1bers of the service 
shalJ be determined according to the date of confirmation in the service. 
If 
regard is had to Rules 10 to 16 of the Rules, the appellant must rank lower 
in seniority than Respondents 2 and 3. [720 B-C] 
• 
(b) The circumstance, that the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 took 
~-
charge of their respective posts in Class I service on divergent dates is purely 
-
• 
" 
" 
\ , 
• 
I 
T. s. SANDHU v. PUN.JAB STATE (Chandrachud, C.J.) 
71 7 
fortuitous and cannot affect their seniority. The appellant Vl'as junior to respon-
dents 2 and 3 in Class I1I as well as in Class II service of the PEPSU State. He 
\vas also junior to them in class 11 service of the Punjab Govt., after reorgani-
sation of states. 
Having been appointed to the higher post on th~ same date as 
respondent 3 and on ad hoc basis, the appellant cannot be pennitted to take 
advantage of a chancy circumstance that being geographically close to the head-
quarters, he was able to take charge of the post of promotion on the very day 
on which he was appointed, an opportunity which a quirk of posting .denied 
to respondent No. 3. In fact in Class I, there were only t\.'t'O
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.