UNION OF INDIA versus H.R. PATANKAR & ORS.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 400 · Decided: 14-08-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
400 
UNION OF INDIA 
\', 
H.R. PATANKAR & ORS. 
August 14th, 1984 
[P.N. BH'.GWATI, R.S. PATHAK AND AMARENDRA NATH 
SEN, JJ.J 
Indian Administrative Service (Reguh1tion of Seniority) Rules 1954, 
Rules 3 (3) (a) and 3 (3) (b). 
Direct recruits and promotees-Assignn1ent of same year of affotment-
lnl1r se seniority-How determined. 
Gradation list-Preparation of-Laf'una in Seniority Rules-Governml'nt 
entitled to issue an executive order. 
The first respondent was recruited to the Lndian Administrative Service 
through a competitive examination held in 1955, and atsigned the year 1950 
a!I year of allotment to the Service under Rule 3 (3) (a) of the Indian 
Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954. On August 
21, 1961 he started officiating in a senior post. Respondent Nos. 3 to 9 
were members of the State Civil Service and they were promoted to the Indian 
Administrative Service. Responcfent Nos. 3 to 7 started officiating cont=-
nuously in the senior post in the Service w.e·f 9th June 1961, while respon-
dent Nos. 8 and 9 started officiating w.e.f. August 19, 1961. 
The year of 
a11otment given to Respondent Nos. 3 to 9 was the same as that of respon-
dent No. 1. viz. 1956 and that was given in accordance with Rule 3 (3) (b) 
·"'f the Seniority Ru Tes. 
When the gradation list as on 1st January 1963 was issued by the 
Government of India, the first respondent found that the Government had 
placed respondent Nos. 3 to 9 as senior to him in the gradation list on the 
ground that they had started officiating in a senior post in the Service earlier 
than the first respondent. The first respondent thereupon made several 
representation to the Government of India against the aforesaid fixation of 
seniority but they were ultimately rejected by a communication dated 7th 
October, 1966. 
Being aggrieved, the first respondent filed a writ petition cha)lenging the 
validity of the said gradation list, but a single Judge of the High f"ourt rejec-
ted the contention~ of the first respondent, and dismissed the writ oetition. 
The first respondent preferred a Letters Patent Appeal, which was 
allowed by the Division Bench, holding that the first respondent wa~ entitled 
to seniority over respondent Nos. 3 to 9, and th:i.t the Government of India 
was wrong in placing him bdow respondent Nos. 3 to 9 in the gradation Hst. 
Dismis!ling the Appeal of the Union of India to this Court, 
HELD : 1. The Division Bench of the High Court was right in 
holding that the first respondent should be assigned seniority over respon-
H 
dent Nos. 3 to 9 in the gradation list. [409E] 
.. 
,. 
• 
' 
UNION v. H. R. PATANAKAR 
401 
Jn the instant case, the only fair and just principle of seniority which 
can be applied as tetwecn officers directly recruited through a competi1ive 
exnmination and officers promoted fron1 the State Civil Service and havina: 
the same year of allotment, is to regard direct recruits through a conipetitive 
examination as senior to promotees from the State Civil Service. [409C-D] 
2. The gradation list has to be prepared in accordance with the princi-
ple of seniority laid down by the Government either statutorily or by means 
of executive order or rule and it is by reference to ·such principle of seniority 
laid down by the Government that the validity of the gradation list is rsq'ujred 
to be judged. The gradation Hst must follow the enunciation of the appro· 
Priale principle of seniority followed by the Goverrin1ent and no principle of 
seniority can be implied from the inter se seniority fixed in such gradation 
list. [408F-G] [408F-G] 
In the instant case, the same year of allotment was assigned to the 
first resp0ndent as a1so ~o respondent Nos. 3 to 9 and b~tween them, the 
first respondent was aripointed to the Indian Administrative Service earlier 
than respondent Nos. 3 to 9. On the date when the first respondent was 
appointed to the ·lndian Administrative Service, the Principle of seniority 
which was in force was one set out in the original sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 and 
according to this principle if respondent Nos. 3 to 9 had been appointed prior 
to 11th April 1958 but subsequent to the appointment of the first respondent, 
the first respondent would be entitled to claim seniority over respondent 
Nos. 3 to 9. [408H; 409A-B] 
3. Rule 4 of the Seniority Rules laid down the principles for gover-
ning inter se seniority of officers in the Indian Administrative Service. By a

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