UNION OF INDIA versus B.S. AGARWAL AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 327 · Decided: 29-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
B.S. AGARWAL AND ANR. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 29, 1997 
[G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
B 
Service Law : 
Scheme for making appointment to the post of General Manager and 
equivalent - para 7.3-/nterpretation of-Whether to be referable to the date C 
of accrual of vacancy or date of actual appointment-Held, referable to the 
date of accrual of vacancy in order to ensure fairness and transparency as 
the date of accrual of vacancy is a fIXed one. 
Appointment-To the post of General Manager and equivalent in the D 
railways-Appointment made on interpreting para 7.3 of the making 
appointment to the post of General Manager and equivalent, as being referable 
to date of accrual of vacancy relying on decision of CAT-Respondents not 
appointed-Appointment of juniors to respondents--Plea, that juniors 
appointed in relaxation of para 7.3 by ignoring interse seniority-Held in 
the .facts of the case the question of ignoring a senior officer by relaxing the E 
requirement of Para 7.3 of the scheme in.favour of some junior of)lcers, and 
the question of hostile discrimination does not arise. 
Interpretation of statute-Court to lean in favour of such interpretation 
of statute which conforms to justice and /airplay and prevents potentiality to 
justice by liberally construing the provision without intrinsically violating F 
the language of the statute and the purpose intended to be achieved. 
The case involves interpretation of Para 7.3 of the scheme for making 
appointments to the post of General Manager and equivalent in the Railways. 
The respondents were not appointed to the post of General Manager and G 
equivalent, and the officers junior to the respondents were appointed for the 
post~. The respondents challenged the appointments before Central 
Administrative Tribunal, alleging that it was discril}linatory and violative of 
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the juniors to the respondents were 
appointed by relaxing the provisions of Para 7.3 of the Scheme and not making H 
327 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A such relaxation in case of the respondents even though they were senior. The 
Tribunal allowed the applications of the responrlents. 
In appeal to this court the Union oflndia contended that the appointments 
were based on correct interpretation of para 7.3 of the Scheme consistent 
with the decision of Allahabad Bench Central Administrative Tribunal in ASP 
B Sinha 's, case which indicated that residual service of 2 years as· contained in 
para 7.3 of the Scheme should be reckoned from the date of accrual of the 
vacancy. It was contended further that the appointments were made out of the 
empanelled officers who had residual service of at least 2 years from the date 
of accrual of vacancy; therefore there was no question of relaxation of para 
7.3 of the scheme and resorting to discrimination against the respondents; 
C and that the respondents were not eligible to be appointed because none of 
them had two years tenure either on the date of accrual of vacancy in their 
term or on the date of actual appointment; and that accrual of vacancy is a 
fixed point but the dates of subsequent stages of consideration and actual 
appointment are not fixed and therefore para 7.3 of the Scheme should be 
D interpreted in such a manner so that there is no scope of bringing any 
uncertainty as to eliminate chance of getting appointment of an empanelled 
officer even though such officer is senior and is otherwise suitable to be 
appointed to the post of General Manager and equivalent. · 
The respondents contended that the language of para 7.3 of the Scheme 
E dearly indicates that Union Government clearly intended the residual service 
oi2 years to ~ommence from the date of appointment and when there is no 
scope of ambiguity and the language is clear, the words are to be interpreted 
in the context in which they are used and in the garb of interpretation no one 
can be permitted to put a self serving interpretation contrary to true legal 
position, and that in the teeth of clear language of para 7.3 of the scheme, 
F officer junior to the respondent were appointed in violation of criteria laid 
down in para 7.3 and that the deviation from the rule of residual service of 2 
years from the date of appointment in case of junior officers can be only 
through the power of relaxation under para I 0 of the Scheme and the 
appointing authority cannot ignore interse seniority of the empanel

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