UNION OF INDIA ETC. versus G.N. TIWARI, K.L JAIN & ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 744 · Decided: 19-11-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
744 
UNION OF INDIA ETC. 
V• 
G.N. TllWU, K.L. JAIN & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 19, 1985 
[A.P. SEN AND D.P. MADON, JJ.] 
Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) 
Rules, 1954, Rule 3(3) (b) - Year of allotment, reckoning of -
Whether a member of the State Civil Service (Executive) on his 
temporary appointment by the State Governn;ent under rule 9 of the 
Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, for a period 
exceeding six months, is entitled to have his continuous period 
of officiation in a senior post for the purposes of computation 
of the 
"year of allotment" and fixation of seniority - Indian 
Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, Rule 9, scope of -
Clause (1) of Section III of Schedule II of the Indian 
Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954. 
The respondent, in CA 5045 of 1985 was a substantive member 
of the State Civil Service (Executive) in the State of Madhya 
Pradesh. He was, on November 7, 1975, temporarily appointed by 
the State Government to the post of a collector which is a senior 
post on the cadre under rule 9 of the Indian Administrative 
Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and had been continuously officiating 
on such post with effect from November 10, 1975 till the Central 
Govermnent accorded its approval on October 1, 1976 for his 
appointment in the Indian Administrative Service. The promotion 
quota of non-c:adre officers to cadre posts which was 50 prior to 
October 11 1976 was on that date increased to 56. The respondent 
was foxmally appointed to the Indian Administrative Service by 
the Central Govermnent on December 7, 1976. The State Govermnent 
of Madhya Pradesh by its letter dated February 3, 1979 informed 
him that be was assigned 1972 as the yesr of allotment by the 
Central Government. The respondent, therefore, filed a petition 
under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ or 
direction directing the appellants to assign him, 1971 as the 
year of allotment, fix his seniority accordingly and allow all 
consequential reliefs. 
The High Court, held: (a) that though there was no specific 
approval of the Central Govermnent to the appointment of the 
respondent, such pd.or approval was 
not a condition precedent 
U•O.I. v. G.N. TIWARI 
745 
for valid appointment to a cadre under rule 9 of the Cad.re Bulea 
and, therefore, the continuous officiation by the respondent as 
A 
the Collector for the period from November 10, 1975 to September 
30, 197 6 could not be ignored on the ground that the appointment 
was not specifically approved by the Central Government: (b) the 
existence of a vacancy in the promotion quota of cadre officers 
was not a condition pre-requisite for making an appointment of a 
non-cadre officer to a cadre post under rule 9 of the Cadre l!ulea 
B 
and therefore, the fact that there was over utilization of the 
State Deputation Reserve Quota had no bearing on the queation of 
the valid! ty of the appointment of the respondent on a cadre 
post; 
(c) that the condition of approval by 
the Central 
Government required by the proviso to clause (I) of Section Ill 
of Schedule 11 of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) ·l!ulea, 
c 
1954 was only for pay fixation and it had nothing to do with the 
validity of the officiation of a non-cadr" officer in a cadre 
post under l!ule 9 of the Cadre l!ulea; and (d) that his continuous 
officiation in a senior post of Collector from November 10, 1975 
was in accordance with l!ule 9 of the Cadre l!ulea and the same 
must enure for his benefit to give him seniority under Rule 3(3) 
D 
(b) of the Seniority l!ulea. The High Cpurt thus allowed the 
petition. 
· 
Following the said case reported as K.L. Jain v. um- of 
IDdia, (1984) MPLJ 284, the High Court of Madhya Pradeah in the 
connected cases out of which the present Civil Appeals Nos. 5040-
E 
5044 of 1985 arise held that the reapondents therein alao be 
assigned years 1966, 1967 and 1971 as their "years of allotment" 
reapectively under rule 3(3) (b) of the Seniority l!ulea 8Dd their 
placement in the seniority list be accordingly revised. 
Allowing the appeal.a, the Court 
llEUl : 1.1 For the purposes of appointment of a non-cadre 
officer to a cadre post under Rule 9 of the Indian Administrative 
Service (Cadre) l!ules, 1954, neither the prior approval of the 
Central Government to such appointment nor the existence of a 
vacancy in the promotion quota is a condition precedent. [754 G] 
1.2 It is plain upon a construct

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