UNION OF INDIA ETC. versus G.K. SANGAMESHWAR AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 13-07-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
) 
t 
; 
> 
UNION OF INDIA ETC. 
v. 
G.K. SANGAMESHWAR AND ORS. ETC. 
JULY 13, 1993 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Civil Services-Seniority Rules, 1954-Rule 3(3)(c) proviso-Object, 
scope and constmction-'Appointed'-Meaning of 
Civil Service.1~Se11iority Rules, 1954-Rule 3(3)(c) proviso-Officers 
belonging to State Civil Service and non-State Civil Service-Seniority-Fi.xa-
tion-Principles. 
A 
B 
c 
Civil Services-Seniority Rules, 1954--Rule 3(3)(c) proviso read with 
paragraphs 2 and 3 of Circular dated 6.6.1978-Year of allotment-Deter-
mination-Laying down p1inciples-Legality of-Application of piinciples in D 
para 2 of Circular. 
CA. Nos. 3215-20 of 1993 
Respondent·'S' was selected for recruitment to the Indian Ad· 
ministration Service (TAS) as a non-State Civil Service Gazetted Officer E 
1985. Before the said selection 'S' was considered for appointment to the 
IAS along with 'N' but was not selected. 'N' was however selected and, 
assigned the year 1981 as the year of allotment. Applying the circular dated 
June 6, 1978, the Government of India decided that as 'S' was not selected . 
at the time when 'N' was selected, he could not be assigned an year of 
allotment earlier than that assigned to 'N'.Since 'N' was assigned the year F 
1981 as the year of allotment 'S' was also assigned the year 1981 as the year 
of allotment. 
'S' made a representation to the Government of India wherein he 
stated that he was working on the post of Joint Registrar, Cooperative G 
Societies, which post was equivalent to a senior scale post of the Service, 
since September 3, 1973 and moreover a directly recruited officer who was 
appointed to IAS on July 3, 1969 was appointed to the senior scale on 
December 6, 1972, 'S' claimed that he should be assigned the year 1969 as 
the year of allotment. \'ide communication dated October 25, 1988, the said 
representation of 'S' was rejected. The Central Administrative Tribunal H 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
quashed the letter dated October 25, 1988 of the Government of India and 
directed the Union of India and the State of Karnataka to fix the seniority 
of 'S' in accordance with clause (c) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Seniority 
Rules. 
· 
Against the said order of the Tribunal, the Union of India and the 
B State of Karnataka filed appeals before this Court. 
c 
Respondent -'B' was selected for recruitment to the !AS in 1985 as a 
non-State Civil Service Officer. In accordance with the proviso to clause (c) 
of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation 
of Seniority) Rules, 1954, he was assigned the year 19i 7 as the year of 
allotment on the ground that a State Civil Service Officer of the State of 
karnataka, who had longer length of service, had been assigned the year 
1977 as the year of allotment. 'B' submitted a representation to the Govern-
ment of India wherein he stated that since he had been working on the post 
of Joint Director of Industries and Commerce since May 1978, which post 
D was equivalent to a senior scale post in the service, he was entitled to be 
assigned the year 1974 as the year of allotment. 
By order dated 30.9.1988, the Government of India re.iected 'B's' 
representation. 
E 
The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the orders of the 
F 
Government of India regarding assignment of the year of allotment and 
directed the Union oflndia and the State of Karnataka to consider his case 
for refixation of his seniority with reference to the year 1974. 
The Union of India filed a review application before the Tribunal, 
which was dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence these appeals by the Union of 
"1dia and the State of Karnataka in this Court. 
Respondent 'C' a non-State Civil Service Officer was considered in 
1985 for selection for recruitment to the !AS along with 'S' and 'B'. 'C' was 
G not selected. He was selected subsequently in 1988. In accordance with the 
Circular dated June 6, 1978, he was assigned the year 1981 as the year of 
allotment because 'S', who was selected in 1985 had the assigned the year 
1981 as the year of allotment. 
He submitted a representation to the Government of India wherein 
H he submitted that he should be assigned the year 1977 as the year of 
\ 
' 
f 
J 
U.0.1. v. G.K.SANGAMESHWAR 
3 
allotment. 
The said representation was rejected by the Government of India 
vide order dated September 4, 1990. 
A 
The Tribunal quashed the orders 
of the Government of

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