V.P. SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS. versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 59 · Decided: 02-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

·• 
V.P. SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS. 
v. · 
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 2, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
Service Law-Madhya Pradesh State Industries (Gazetted) Service 
Recntitment Rules, 1965-Mode of recrnitment to post of Assistant Director 
of Indusirie§-Detennination of inter se seniority between a direct recntit and 
A 
B 
a promotee-Where appointment is only ad hoc and not according to 
C 
mies-Officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for fixing 
seniority. 
Practice and Procedure-Principle of detemiination of seniority-Chal-
lenged-State is necessary party. 
The appellants, direct recruits as Assistant Director of Industries, 
having been appointed on 29-9-1980 through the process of selection, 
challenged the selection list for promotion. The respondents, ad-hoc 
promotees to the post of Assistant Director, they having been promoted 
D 
on 27.9.1980, de-hors the rules, in anticipation of the approval of the Public E 
Service Commission, were shown senior to the regular appointees like the 
appellants. 
Administrative Tribunal dismissed the application while holding 
that in an earlier case while deciding the inter se seniority of 1974 recruits 
the Tribunal had decided to take ad-hoc appointment of the promotees F 
into consideration and therefore the decision should govern the case and 
that since the promotion in favour of the respondents in the year 1980 
could not be challenged after such a long time, the said promotees would 
be entitled to count their entire service for the purpose of determining of 
seniority and since all the promotees had not been arrayed as party G 
respondents no relief could be granted to the appellants. This appeal had 
been filed against the Judgment of the Tribunal. 
The appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in law in declaring 
the promotees to be senior to the direct recruits solely on the ground that 
the promotees were appointed on 27.9.1980 whereas the direct recruits H 
59 
60 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
. A were appointed on 29.9.1980; that non-inclusion of affected party will not 
be fatal to the case since the very principle of determination of inter se 
seniority adopted by the State Government was challenged, the only neces-
sary party was the State itself and that selection list having been finalised 
only in the year 1988, on 23.12.1988, the appellants' application before the 
B Tribunal in 1989 could ~ot be held to be barred on the principle of delay 
and laches. 
The respondents merely contended that they had served in the post 
for a longtime, alteration of the seniority need not be made by this court. 
C 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The initial appointment of the respondents on promotion 
not having been made following the procedure laid down by the Madhya 
Pradesh State Industries (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules of 1965 and 
even though they were continuing in the post uninterruptedly but the Public 
D Service Commission having not approved their appointments as yet, their 
officiation in such post could not be taken into account for considering the 
seniority and the promotees could not be declared senior to the direct 
recruits solely on the ground that the promotees were appointed on 
27.9.1980 whereas the directrecruits were appointed on 29.9.1980. The 
appellants must be held senior to the respondents ad hoc promotees. [65-C, 
E 66-BJ 
Direct Recrnit Class II Engineering Officers Association & Ors. v. State 
of Maharashtra & Ors., [1990) 2 SCR 900; State of West Bengal & Ors. v. 
Ag/tore Nath Day & Ors., [1993) 3 SCC 371 and Sreenivasa Reddy & Ors. v. 
F 
Govt. Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [1995) Suppl. 1 SCC 572, followed. 
1.2. The appellants did not challenge the so called ad-hoc appoint-
ments of the promotee respondents but they did challenge the position of 
the said ad-hoc promotee respondents over the appellant in the seniority 
list. The very principle of 'determination of seniority' made by the State 
G Government being under challenge, for such a case State was in necessary 
party who has been impleaded. The Tribunal erred in law in holding that 
non inclusion of the affected parties was fatal to the proceeding. 
[66-B-C, 67-B] 
General Manager, South Central Railway Secunderabad and Anr. Etc. 
H v. A. V.R. Siddhanti and Ors. Etc., [1974) 3 S.C.R. 207 and Prabodh Venna 
-
V.P. SHRIV ASTA VA v. STATE [PATTANAIK, J.] 
61 
and Others, Etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Other.s Etc., (19

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