UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. versus S.D. GUPTA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 471 · Decided: 12-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
S.D. GUPTA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 12, 1996 
[K. RAMAMSWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Central Water Commission Engineering Class-I Service Rules, 1965 : 
Rules 5,6,8-Inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits-
C 
Since Rules are silent, sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 clearly mentions that the 
dete1mination of seni01ity in accordance with the rules of the Govemment of 
India, Ministry of Home '1ffairs, personnel & Administrative Refonns Depmt-
ment would be applicable 1957 instructions prescribed quota and rota proce-
dur~These would supplement the Rules-Though direct recruits were D 
recruited later, their fitment in the order of seniority would be detennined with 
reference to the rota and quota prescribed in the instructions and the statutory 
rules-Though some of the direct recruits were not even born in the service 
when th_e promotees were promoted these are inevitable consequences so long 
as the system continues-Question of equity does not aris~Though direct 
recruits appointed temporarily, on completion of probation they become E 
substantive appointees-This is the settled principle of law. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3767 of 
1996 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.4.95 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1050 of 1994. 
V.V. Vaze, Ms. Binu Tamta and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Appellants 
in C.A. No. 3767/96. 
F 
C. Sitaramaniaha, P. Narasimahan for Appellant in C.A. No. 3768/96. G 
M.N. Krishnamani, S. Menon for the Respondents. 
U.P. Misra Intervenor in Person. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
471 
H 
_1 
I 
·" 
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Delay condoned. Impleadment is allowed. 
Leave granted. 
We have heard the counsel on both sides. The admitted facts are that 
the respondents are promotee-Extra Assistant Directors (Class III) in 
B 
Central Water Commission Engineering Class-I Service. Rules were made 
w.e.f. October 15, 1965. The Tribunal in the earlier litigation had found 
that V.P. Misra, Extra Asstt. Director was promoted on ad hoc basis on 
March 31, 1978 and he was required to be confirmed w.e.f. the date on 
which vacancy was available to him in the quota of promotees. It is not in 
C dispute the vacancy had arisen in the quota of promotees on May 3, 1979 
and he was fitted into that vacancy. While doing so, the appellants had 
applied the principle of rota and quota and determined inter-se-seniority 
of the promotees and the direct recruits. Consequently, the promotees 
were pushed down in the order of their seniority. That led to the second 
round of litigation. In the impugned order dated April 20, 1995 made in 
D O.A. No. 1050/94, the CAT at Delhi had directed the appelJants to deter-
mine the seniority in the light of the directions issued by this Court in Civil 
Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 14389/88 on April 23, 1991 and the 
relevant rules applicable to the candidates. Since it created confusion in 
the implementation of the order, the appelJants have come before us by 
E special leave. The Tribunal in paragraph 5 has stated thus : 
F 
G 
"We find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for 
the applicants that the intention of the judgment of the Supreme 
Court was to ignore the ad hoc period prior to the occurrence of 
vacancy. The continuous officiation period was, therefore, to count 
only from the date of vacancy in the p.romotees quota arose. This 
principle has not been observed while preparing the impugned 
seniority list, which, therefore, has to be quashed." 
In ultimate paragraph 7, this was held thus : 
"In view of the above, the Original Application is allowed and· the 
impugned seniority list dated 19.1.1994 is hereby quashed. The 
administration shall redraw the seniority list taking into account 
the observations made." 
H 
The question, therefore, is what will be the principle applicable to 
-
-
-
U.0.1. v. S.D. GUPTA 
473 
the respondent and the direct recruits, in appeal arising out of SLP (C) A 
No. 2293/96. It is not in dispute that as on May 3, 1979 the Rules applicable 
to the candidates were as under : 
"5. PROMOTEES 
(i) The relative seniority of persons promoted to the various B 
grades shall be determined in the order of their selection for such 
promotion: 
Provided that where persons promoted initially on temporary 
basis are confirmed subsequently in an order different from 
the order of merit i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.