UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus S.N. DUBEY AND ORS

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 1166 · Decided: 13-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
S.N. DUBEY AND ORS .. 
AUGUST 13, 1998 
B 
[S.C AGRAWAL, M. SRINIVASAN, AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 : 
c 
Rule 3(3) (c), proviso-Non State Civil Service Officer-Selected in the 
year 1981 to Indian Administrative Service under Rule 8(2) of the Indian 
Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules-On the basis of proviso to Rule 
3(3) (c) of Seniority Rules, assigned 1977 as year of allottment for ftxing 
inter-se seniority in the service since junior most officer promoted from state 
D Civil Service, whose, length of service being longer than that of non state 
civil service officer, was allotted 1977-Claim by officer for ftxing seniority 
w.ej 1971-Held proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) does not suffer from any infirmity 
E 
Officer has been rightly assigned 1977 as the year of allotment in accordance 
• 
with proviso to Rule 3(3)(c). 
The contesting respondent Joined as Assistant Professor of Civil 
Engineering, a class II service of Government ofBihar on 13.8.1968. He had 
worked on various posts under the government of Bihar and by Notification. 
Dated 12.5.81 he was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service as a 
non-State Civil Service officer in accordance with Rule 8(2) of the Indian 
F Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules. He was assigned 1977 as the 
year of allotment for the purposes of determining his seniority in the Service, 
as per Government of India letter dated 11.4.86. It was Stated therein view 
that in of the proviso to Rule 3(3) (c), the year of allotment of the respondent 
cannot be determined earlier than 1977 since, the length of service of the 
G junior most officer of the State Civil Service who was appointed to the 
Service in 1977, before the respondent is more than the service of the 
respondent in the State. 
After rejection of a representation, the respondent filed an application 
before the Tribunal contending that the year of allotment for seniority should 
H have been 1971 instead of 1977. The application was allowed in terms of its 
1166 
U.0.1. v. S.N. DUBEY 
1167 
earlier judgment in the case of K.R. Nambiar v. VO/, wherein it was held that A 
· 'proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the seniority Rules was unconstitutional and void. 
The Tribunal, accordingly, directed the Central Government to fix 1971 as 
the year of allotment of the respondent. 
In the Special Leave Petitions filed against the judgments of the Tribunal 
in the cases of KR Nambiar and the respondent, this Court, by Order dated 
8.4.91 upheld the validity of Rule 3(3)(c) of the seniority Rules though the 
direction of the Tribunal in respect of the respondent and KR Nambiar were 
not disturbed. A review Petition was filed wherein it was pointed out that the 
relief granted to the respondent could not be sustained since it was contrary 
B 
to Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules, which had been upheld by this Court. C 
The review petition was however, dismissed. 
Since the revision of year of allotment of the respondent adversely 
affected the seniority of some officers, they filed a writ petition in this Court. 
It was contended that the writ petition might be treated as a review petition 
of judgment dated 8.4.91 of this Court 
D 
The writ petition was treated as a review petition. The civil appeal of 
the respondent was taken up for hearing wherein the writ petitioners were 
impleaded as parties. In this civil appeal the only issue for determination was 
the year of allotment of the respondent, a non-State Civil Service officer. 
E 
It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the decisions of this 
Court upholding proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules need to be 
reconsidered since in the matter of inter-se seniority a non-State Civil 
Service Officer and a State Civil Service Officer cannot be compared, and 
seniority of a non-State Civil Service officer cannot be dependent upon that F 
of a State Civil Service officer. Under Rule 8(2) of Recruitment Rules, only 
a person of outstanding ability and merit, serving as a gazetted officer in 
connection with affairs of the State, and who is not a member of the State 
Civil Service, can be appointed to the Service by selection. 
Allowing the Appeal, this Court. 
HELD: I.I. The proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the Indian Administrative 
Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 does not suffer from any 
infirmity and no ground is made out for reconsideration

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