V. SIVA KUMAR & ORS. versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 206 · Decided: 08-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 206 
V. SIVA KUMAR & ORS. 
v. 
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE & ORS. 
(C.A. No. 2945 of 2001) 
JANUARY 8, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Service Law: 
Navy Grade-C Non-Industrial Posts, Store House Staff, 
C Recruitment Rules, 1984 - Seniority- O.M dated 7.2.1986 -
Para 7 - Providing seniority in respect of vacancies for which 
"'recruitment action' has already been taken on the date of 
issue" of O.M., to be governed by principles in force prior to 
issuance of O.M. - Held: 'Recruitment action' means an action 
D taken for recruitment - Seniority of candidates empanelled 
prior to issuance of 0. M. dated 7. 2. 1986 would be governed 
by norms existing on date of issuance of said O.M. 
E 
Words and Phrases: 
'Recruitment action' - Connotation of. 
The appellants and proforma respondents 45-55 
were, pursuant to an advertisement dated 8.7.1983, 
selected in the year 1984 as Store Keepers in the direct 
recruitment quota under the Navy Grade-C Non-Industrial 
F Posts, Store House Staff Recruitment Rules, 1984. Later, 
O.M. dated 7.2.1986 was issued prescribing new principle 
of seniority, in supersession of principles of earlier O.M. 
dated 22.12.1959. Thereafter, 99 candidates were selected 
for promotion in the promotional quota. The appellants 
and respondent nos.44-55, who all were direct recruits 
G and were selected in the year 1984, were given 
appointments on 1.12.1986. In the seniority list they were 
shown below the candidates appointed against 
promotional quota. The appellants and respondents 44-
55 filed O.A. No.673 of 1992 before the Central 
H 
206 
> \ 
V. SIVA KUMAR & ORS. v. SECRETARY, 
207 
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] 
~· 
Administrative Tribunal. The O.A·was allowed; and as the A 
judgment was not challenged further, it became final. In 
another matter, a Full Bench of the Tribunal decided 
certain issues. On 27.12.1996, a revised seniority list was 
issued purportedly in line with the judgment in O.A.673 of 
1992. This was again cllallenged before the Tribunal which B 
held that the Full Bench of the Tribunal did'. not address 
) 
~·· 
itself to the question of seniority of the employee selected 
and empanelled prior to 1.3.1986 but appointed after the 
said date; and, that the O.M. dated 7.2.1986 was 
'prospective in nature. This upset the seniority of the c 
appellants. They filed a writ petition which was dismissed 
by the High Court holding that the decision of the Full 
Bench of the Tribunal applied t() the facts of the case. 
In the instant appeal filed by the direct recruits, it was 
contended that since the judgment in O.A.673of1992 had D 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
become final, it was not open to be nullified by another 
' 
x 
Division Berich of ttie Tribunal and, that the true effect of 
para 7 of O.M. dated 7 .2.1986 was not correctly applied as 
the crucial exp~essic;m in the O.M. was 'recruitment action' 
and the term 'recruitment' could not be the same as E 
'appointment': 
... 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Before the Full Bench of the Tribunal the 
; 
,\. 
first part of para 7 was under consideration and the effect F 
of the expression "recruitment action" was not in issue. 
The relevant portion of para 7 refers to vacancies for which 
recruitment action had already been taken. There are two 
aspects of significance, they are; ·(1) there must be 
vacancy; and (2) the recruitmentaction must have already G 
been taken. Othenivise, there: was no need to use the 
-:,o· 
expression '"for Which recruitment action has already 
been taken", because the appointment has to take effect 
from the relevant date. [para 9-10) [211-H, 212-A, BJ 
1.2 "Recruitment action" obviously would mean an 
H 
208 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A action taken for recruitment. That being so, the impugned 
judgment of the High Court upholding the decision of the 
Tribunal that seniority of the employees appointed after 
1.3.1986 would be governed by O.M. dated 7.2.1986, even 
though they were empanelled and selected prior to 
B 1.3.1986 is clearly untenable and is set aside. [para 1 
and 13] [212-F] [208 F-G] 
K. Narayanan vs. State of Karnataka [1994] Supp. 1 
sec 44 - relied on. 
C 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2945 
D 
E 
of 2001. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 3.3.2000 of the 
High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W. 
P. No. 5540/1999. 
R. Venkataramani, C.K. Sucharita for the Appellants. 
R. Mohan

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