UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus G.K. VAIDYANATHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 718 · Decided: 02-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
G.K. VAIDYANATHAN AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 2, 1995 
(K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND 
B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Senio1ity-Inter-se seniority of direct recruits and proniotees--Decision 
of T1ibwia/ based on concession made by direct recntits--Held : cannot be 
considered as decision on nzelits. 
The first respondent was promoted to the post of chargeman 
Grade-I on January 5, 1981 on a regular basis. The other respondents 
were appointed as direct recruits to the said post _in December 1981. 
Recruitment to the post of chargeman Grade • I was both by promotion as 
well as by direct recruitment. When the recruitment was done through both 
the above methods, a rule of' rotation was also in vogue, the ratio between 
promotees and direct recruits was 80 : 20. The rotation rule in vogue 
provided that out of every five vacancies, tin: first four vacancies shall be 
filled by promotees and the fifth vacancy by direct recruitment. 
For further promotion to the post of Assistant Foreman, they were 
considered on the basis of the aforesaid seniority, with the result that the 
F 
direct recruits, who were appointed in December 1981 came to be promoted 
to the post of Assistant Foreman earlier than the first respondent. During 
the years 1978 to 1981 both direct recruitments and promotions were being 
made in excess of the quota. In the seniority list issued in the year 1982. 
the direct recruits were shown as senior to the first respondent. 
G 
H 
The first respondent filed a petition before the Central Administra· 
tive Tribunal praying for a declaration that the seniority list issued in the 
year 1982 be declared to be illegal and invalid and a further direction to 
promote him to the post of Assistant Foreman. The Tribunal allowed the 
petition upon a concession made by the direct recruits that the quota rule 
had broken down warranting re-fixation of seniority. 
718 
-
-
U.0.1. v. G.K. VAIDYANATHAN 
719 
Aggrieved by the Tribunal's judgment, the appellants have preferred A 
the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that this Court should 
decide on merits whether the quota rule had indeed broken down durh1g 
the period 1978 to 1981 de /um· the concession made on behalr of the direct 
recruits before the Tribunal. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the quota rule 
had broken down and that the concession to this effect was rightly made 
before the Tribunal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: I.I. The decision of the Tribunal is based upon a concession 
and cannot, therefore, be treated as a decision on merits. The said conces· 
sion made by direct recruits cannot and does not bend the appellant, which 
is equally an affected party in the matter. Even during the years 1978 to 
1981 • the period during which the promotees say, there was a break-down 
in the (jUota rule - both direct recruitn1ents and promotions were being 
made though it may be that promotions to the cadre were made in excess 
B 
c 
D 
of the quota. The correctness of this fact is not disputed or questioned 
before this Court. Once this is so, the very theory of break-down of the E 
quota rule falls to the ground. The factual situation concludes the issue 
against the promotees. (724-D-F] 
Direct Recntit Class fl Engineen·ng Office1:'\ Association v. State of 
Maharashtra, [1990] 2 SCC 715, cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4340 of 
1995 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.88 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Addi. Bench Madras in 0.A. No. 731 of 1986. 
Wasim Qadri, P. Parmeshwaran and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Ap-
pellants. 
M.N. Krishnamani, P.K. Singh, S. Madhusudan Babu and M.M. 
F 
G 
Kashyap, for the Respondent in C.A. No. 4340/95. 
H 
720 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition 
(C) No. 3930 of 1988. 
A common question arises in these two appeals. Civil Appeal No. 
4340 of 1995 is preferred by the Union of lndia against the decision of the 
Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) in Original Application 
No. 731 of 1981 whereas Civil Appeal arising from Special Leave Petition 
(C) No. 3930 of 1988 is preferred against an order of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal (Bangalore Bench) in Original Application No. 380 
of 1987 as well as the order dismissing a review application filed by 

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