# AMARJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

- **Citation:** [1975] 3 S.C.R. 82
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-12-20
- **Bench:** K. Mathew, P. N. Bhagwati, Untwalia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/amarjit-singh-ahluwalia-v-the-state-of-punjab-ors-6391
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Service-llltegration of two services-Memorandum issued by Government fixing inter se seniority-"Colltinuous Service" and "date of appolntmem"
meaning of,
With effect from 15th July, 1964 the Provincial Civil Medical Service and
the Public: lkalth Service of the State were integrated into one service. After
integration, class I and class II posts in the respective services before integration
were equated lo class I and 11 posts in the combined cadre. While the post
of District Medical Officer corresponded to class II in the combined cadre the
post of Assistant Director of Health corresponded to class I in the combined
cadre. Before integra\ion the State Government by its order dated April 8,
1964 promoted with immediate 'effect respondents 3 to 19 who were c:lass n
officer in the Provincial Medical Service to class I but since the order could
not be convei1ed to them 1mmeaia1ely, they j01ned their posts on di.fferent
dates between April 27, 1964 and May J 1, 1964. At the time of integration
the appellant, a class II officer, though working in the post of Assistant Director
with effect from April 25, J 964, was not promoted to that post but was merely
working in that post on his own pay scale as District Medical officer of
Health. His r•::presentation that he should be promoted to the post of Ai;sistant
Director with retrospecive effect from April 25, 1964 since he was working
in that post was considered by the State Government and he was allowed to
·:ontinue in that post on the dale of integration.
He was absorbed in a
class I post but his place in the combined cadre was b~Iow that of respondents
3 to 19.
For the purpose of determining inter se seniority of officers belong.ing to
the two services the State Government issued a memorandum on October 25,
1965, clause (2)(ii) of which stated that seniority of Deputy Directors and
Assistant Directors on the cadte of the Public Health' on integration in PCMS-I
should be !ermined with reference to the length of continuous service from
the date of appointment in the group subject to the condition that the seniority
of a person in parent seniority list will not be disturbed.
The appellant claimed that on the basis of the principle laid down in
clause 2(ii) of the office memorandum he was entitled to seniority over rnspon·
dents 3 to 19 because his continuous servir.e started from April 25, 1964 while
that of respondents 3 to 19 •started only after that date. The State Government rejected this claim of the appellant and issued orders that the seniority
of respondents 3 to 19 should be reckoned from the date of their appoini:ment
namely. April 8, 1964.
In a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution a single Judge of the
High Court ac:epted this contention of the appellant that he was senior to
-respondents 3 to
19 and allowed the writ petition. On appeal the division
bench held that the memorandum dated October 25, 1965 laid down th 0 principle determining seniority only for Deputy Directors and Assistant Directors
in the Public Health Service on integration in PGMS in Class I and did not
provide as to how seniority of medical officers already in the Provincial Civil
Medical Service Class I shall be determined vis-a-vis Deputy Directors and
Assistant Directors on integration. The High Court upheld the order of the
Government determining that the seniority of respondents 3 to 19 shal'I be
reckoned from the date of the order of appointment, namely, AFril 8, 1964
Irrespective as to when they assumed charge of their hip )IOSts.
On appeal to this Court it was contended that continuous service in a . post
could commence only when the incumbent took. .;barge of the post and not
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
c
E
G
n
A. s. AHLUWALIA v. PUNJAB (Bhagwaii, J.)
83
earlier. a~d os suc,h respondents 3 to 19 who took charge after the appellant
were 111nior to him. The State on the other hand contended thM it was
competent to it to fix an assumed date on which the continuous service of
respondents 3 to 19' s

## Text

82
AMARJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
December 20, 1974
[K, K. MATHEW, P. N. BHAGWATI AND N. L, UNTWALIA, JJ.]
Civil Service-llltegration of two services-Memorandum issued by Government fixing inter se seniority-"Colltinuous Service" and "date of appolntmem"
meaning of,
With effect from 15th July, 1964 the Provincial Civil Medical Service and
the Public: lkalth Service of the State were integrated into one service. After
integration, class I and class II posts in the respective services before integration
were equated lo class I and 11 posts in the combined cadre. While the post
of District Medical Officer corresponded to class II in the combined cadre the
post of Assistant Director of Health corresponded to class I in the combined
cadre. Before integra\ion the State Government by its order dated April 8,
1964 promoted with immediate 'effect respondents 3 to 19 who were c:lass n
officer in the Provincial Medical Service to class I but since the order could
not be convei1ed to them 1mmeaia1ely, they j01ned their posts on di.fferent
dates between April 27, 1964 and May J 1, 1964. At the time of integration
the appellant, a class II officer, though working in the post of Assistant Director
with effect from April 25, J 964, was not promoted to that post but was merely
working in that post on his own pay scale as District Medical officer of
Health. His r•::presentation that he should be promoted to the post of Ai;sistant
Director with retrospecive effect from April 25, 1964 since he was working
in that post was considered by the State Government and he was allowed to
·:ontinue in that post on the dale of integration.
He was absorbed in a
class I post but his place in the combined cadre was b~Iow that of respondents
3 to 19.
For the purpose of determining inter se seniority of officers belong.ing to
the two services the State Government issued a memorandum on October 25,
1965, clause (2)(ii) of which stated that seniority of Deputy Directors and
Assistant Directors on the cadte of the Public Health' on integration in PCMS-I
should be !ermined with reference to the length of continuous service from
the date of appointment in the group subject to the condition that the seniority
of a person in parent seniority list will not be disturbed.
The appellant claimed that on the basis of the principle laid down in
clause 2(ii) of the office memorandum he was entitled to seniority over rnspon·
dents 3 to 19 because his continuous servir.e started from April 25, 1964 while
that of respondents 3 to 19 •started only after that date. The State Government rejected this claim of the appellant and issued orders that the seniority
of respondents 3 to 19 should be reckoned from the date of their appoini:ment
namely. April 8, 1964.
In a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution a single Judge of the
High Court ac:epted this contention of the appellant that he was senior to
-respondents 3 to
19 and allowed the writ petition. On appeal the division
bench held that the memorandum dated October 25, 1965 laid down th 0 principle determining seniority only for Deputy Directors and Assistant Directors
in the Public Health Service on integration in PGMS in Class I and did not
provide as to how seniority of medical officers already in the Provincial Civil
Medical Service Class I shall be determined vis-a-vis Deputy Directors and
Assistant Directors on integration. The High Court upheld the order of the
Government determining that the seniority of respondents 3 to 19 shal'I be
reckoned from the date of the order of appointment, namely, AFril 8, 1964
Irrespective as to when they assumed charge of their hip )IOSts.
On appeal to this Court it was contended that continuous service in a . post
could commence only when the incumbent took. .;barge of the post and not
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
c
E
G
n
A. s. AHLUWALIA v. PUNJAB (Bhagwaii, J.)
83
earlier. a~d os suc,h respondents 3 to 19 who took charge after the appellant
were 111nior to him. The State on the other hand contended thM it was
competent to it to fix an assumed date on which the continuous service of
respondents 3 to 19' shall be deemed to have
commenced for the purpose
of determining seniority in the integrated service.
Dismissing the appeal,
·
HELD : (I) On a proper interpretation of clause 2 (ii) of the memoran•
dum dated Oiotob~r 25. 1965 the principle of length of continuous service from
the ~ate of appointmelll was applicable to otlicers coming from both the
·services for the purpose of fixing their inter se
seniority in the integrated
service. [880)
(2) Jt was competent to the Stat; Government to issue cl. (2){ii) of the
memorandum dated October 25, 1965 in exercise of its executive power. It
is well-setted that where no statutory rules are made regulating recruitment
or conditions of service, the State' Government always ca·n. in exercise of its
executive power, issue administrative instructions providing for recruitment and
laying down conditions of service.
[88E,f]
·
B. N. Nagaraja11 v. State of Mysore [1966) 3 S.C.R. 682 and Sant 'Ram
Sharma v. 9tate of Rajastha11 & A11r. [1968] 1 S.C.R. Ill, referred to.
(3) (a) The contention of the State that it was competent to it to fix an
assumed date on which continuous service should be deemed to have com··
menced for determining seniority is not well founded.
Under cl. 2(ii) of
the memorandum what was required to be ·taken into account was the actual
length of continuous service from the date of appointment and not the length
of continuous service reckoned from ar. artificial date given by the State
Government.
[fl8H; 89B)
(b) Although the memorandum dated 25th October, 1965 was in the nature
of an administrative instruction, the State Government could not, at its own
swee will, depart from it without rational justifiication and fix an artificial date
for commendng the length of continuous service in the case of some individual
officers only for the purpose of giving them seniority in contravention· of that
clause; [89C]
( c) Where the State Government departs from a principle of seniority laid
down by it, albeit by administrative instructions, and the departure is without
. reason and arbitrary, it would directly infringe the guarantee of equality under
Arts. 14 and 16.
[89D]
Vitara/Ji v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535 at 54'o-547; 3 Law Ed. (Second Series)
1012 referred to.
( 4) Where the order of appointment appofots a person with effect from
the date· he assumes charge of the post. the appointment would be effective
only when the person appointed assumes charge of the post and that would
be the date of his appointment. Where he is appointed with immediate
effect, the appointment would be effected immidiately,irrespective as to when
the person appointed assumes charge of the post.
[90C-D]
In the instant case so far as respondents 3 to 19 were concerned, the
date of their appoimment was April 8, 1964 and the length of their continuous
service in PCMS Class I was required to be reckoned from that date.
Even
. though the responde~ts joined their respective posts after April 25, . 1964, that
did not make any difference because the length of contmuou.~ semce was to
.be countetl from the date of appointment,
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS '
[1975] 3 S.C.R.
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 624 of 1971.
A
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and orde1r dated the
8th April, 1970 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in LP.A. No.
433/1969.
B. R. L. iyengar, S. K. Mehta for die appellant.
H. R. Khanna and 0. P. Sharma for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
B
Hardev Singh, R. S. Sodhi for Respondent No. 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
•
BHAGWATI, J.-This appeal raises the question whether the appdla'at has been given his proper rank in the joint seniority list of ollicers,..
belonging to the Provincial Civil Medical Service, Class I after its reorganisation on 15th July, 1964.
C
There were, in the State of Punjab prior to 15th July, 1964, two
separate and independent services, namely, Provincial Civil Medical
Service (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as PCMS) and
Public Health Service. Both services comprised two classes, Class I
and Class II, a!ad each had its own separate ranking for seniority and
channel of promotion. The post of District Medical Officer of Health
D
was a post in Class II of the Public Health Serviee, while the post of
Assistant Director He•alth Services was a post in Class I of that Service.
The appellant and one Dr. Jagjit Singh were, until their promotion with
retrospective effect from 25th April, 1964, District Medical Officers of
Health in Class II of Public Health Service.
Dr. Jagjit Singh was
admittedly senior to the appellant ~,1 rank. Respondents Nos .. 3 to 19
were, until their promotion .by an order dated 8th April, 1964, in Class
E
II of PCMS. It appears that some posts in Class I of PCMS fell
vacant an<l it was, therefore, decided to make promotions to these posts
from amongst officers belonging to Class II of PCMS and an order
dated 8th April, 1964 was accordingly issued by the State Government
promoting inter alia respondents Nos. 3 to 19 to Class I, PCMS with
immediate effect. Though this order was made on 8th April, 1964, it
could not be conveyed to respondents Nos. 3 to 19 until 23rd April,
F
1964 and respondents Nos. 3 to 19 could, therefore, assume charge of
the higher posts of promotion only after 27th ApriI, 1964. In fact
they took charge of the higher posts of. promotion on different dates
between 27th April, 1964 and 11th May, 1964. It may be pointed
ot: t that under the order dated 8th April, 1964 several other officers
belonging to Class II, PCMS, in addition to respondents Nos. 3 to 19
were also promoted to Class I, PCMS, but it is not necessary to refer
G
to them si.'llce on bifurcation of the State of Punjab they were allotted
to the State of Haryana and they are no longer contestants with the
appellant in the ranking for seniority. So far as Dr. Jagjit Singh >and
the appellant are concerned, Dr. Jagjit Singh was d.1 deputation with
the Defence Department, while the appellant was appointed to work in
the post of Assistant Director He-alth Services on his own pay scale
from 25th April, 1964. This was the position which obtained! when
El
PCMS and Public Health Service were integrated as part of the admi~
· nistrative reorganisation of the State Medical and Health Department
with effect from 15th July, 1964.
I
I
I·
/ ,
I
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A. s. AHLUWALIA v. PUNJAB (Bhagwati, J.)
85
The PCMS and Public Health Service were integrated with effect
from 15th July, 1964 and common combined cadres, both in Class I
and Class II, were created which were known as PCMS Class I and :
PCMS Class II cadres. The cadre of District Medical Officers ''Of"
Health, which constituted Class II in Public Health Service was equated with PCMS Class .II cadre, while the cadre of Assistant Directors
and Deputy Directors, which constituted Class I of Public Health
Service, was equated with PCMS Class I cadre. Now at the time of
integration Dr. Jagjit S~agh belonged to the c•adre of District Medical
Officers of Health a!ad the appellant, though working in the post of
Assistant Director was not promoted to that post but w?.s merely working in that post on his own pay scale of District Medical Officer of
Health and they would, therefore, have ordinarily been eqU'ated ·and
absorbed in the i~1tegrated PCMS Class II cadre. But the appellant
made a representation to the State Government that since he was work·
ing in the post of Assistant Director, sincr- 25th April, 1964, he should
be promoted to that post with retrospective effect from th•at date. The
State Government considered the representation of the appellant and
decided that the appella!11t should be given promotion to the post of
Assistant Director with effect from 25th April, 1964. But Dr. Jagjit
Singh was senior to the appellant in the cadre of District Medical
Officers of Health and it would, therefore, be unfair to him to ignore
his Claim and give promotion to the appellant who was his junior. The
State Government therefore, "with a view to protecting his right of
promotion by .virtue of his parent sel.iiority which could not be disturb·
ed" passed an order dated 24th July, 1965 granting absentia promotion
to Dr. Jagjit Singh to the post of Assistant Director, with effect from
25th. April, 1964 •and since Dr. Jagjit Singh was on deputation with
the Defence Department, the State Governmelat, by the same order,
promoted the appellant to the post of Assistant Director with effect
from the same date vice Dr. Jagjit Singh. Dr. Jagjit Singh and the
appellant were thus promoted to the posts of Assistant Director with
retrospective effect from 25th April, 1964 and they were accordingly
Assistant Directors on 15th July, 1964 when integration took place
al11d were, therefore, equated and absorbed as such in PCMS Class I
cadre.
Now, one question which arose consequent on the integration of
Class I of Public Health Service with PCMS Class I was as to how the
inter se seniority of the officers coming from the two services should
be determined in the integrated service. The State Government by a
memorandum dated 25th October, 1965 decided that the inter se se·.1iority of officers belonging to the two integrating services should be
determined on the following p;inciple vide cloause 2(ii) :
"The seniority of Deputy Directors and Assistant Directors on the cadre of the Public Health on integration in
PCMS-1 should be determined with reference to the length
of continuous· service from the date of appointment in the
group subject to the condition that the seniority of a person
in parent seniority list will not be disturbed."
This principle for determirration of inter se seniority was communicated
by the Director, Health Services, Punjab to the appellant in a letter
86
SU!'.REME COURT REPORTS
(197~] 3 S.C.R.
dated 27th October, 1964. The appellant was given an option in regard to integration ilil PCMS Class I and was told tlrat on receipt of
his opinion his Sf!niority i.n PCMS Class I would be fixed in accordance
with the length of his continuous service from the date of his appointment.
The appellant opted in favour of integr"'tion a1,1d he was accordingly, as stated above, integrated in PCMS Class I. The question
then arose as to how the seniority of the appellant vis-a-vis respondents
Nos. 3 to 19 should be arranged. The appellant claimed that on the
basis of the pri1aciple of seniority laid down in clause 2(ii)
of the
memorandum dated 25th October, 1965 he was entitled to seniority
over respondents Nos. 3 to 19 since his continuous service started
from 25th April, 1964, while the continuous service of respondents
Nos. 3 to 19 did not start until after 25th April, 1964 when they ass!·med charge of their respective posts. The State Government, however, issued aa order dated 4th December, 1967 determining that the
seniority of respondents Nos. 3 to 19 sh-all be reckoned from the date
of their order of appointment, namely, 8th April, 1964 irrespective as
to when they assumed charge of their respective posts and on this basis,
rejected the claim of the appellant. Subsequently, a provisional joint
seniority list of PCMS Class I was published by the State Gqvernment
and in this list, respondents Nos. 3 to 19 were shown as senior to Dr.
Jagjit Singh and the appellant.
The appellant being aggrieved by the decision of the State Government giving seniority to respondents Nos. 3 to 19 over Dr. Jagjit Singh
and the appellant, filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Coastitutioff
in the High Court of Pun jab and Haryana challenging the se11iority list
published by the State Government.
The main ground of chalkng1~
was that according to the pri1,1ciple of seniority laid down by the State
Government in clause 2(ii) of the memorandum dated 25th October,
1965 the inter se seniority of the integrating officers was to be deter·-
mined with reference to the length of continuous service from the date
of appointment and if this priaciple was properly applied, Dr. Jagjit
Singh and the appellant would be senior to respondents Nos. 3 to 19'
as their continuous service in the posts of Assistant Director commenc-·
ed from 25th April, 1964, while the continuous service of responde~1ts
Nos. 3 to 19 in the corresponding posts in PCMS Class I did not commence until after 25th April, 1964 when they took charge of their
respective posts and the continuous service put in by them was, therefore, longer in duration thait that put in by respondents Nos. 3 to 19.
This ground was accepted by the learned Single Judge who heard the
petition and taking the view that Dr. Jagjit Singh and the appellant
were senior to respondents Nos. 3 to 19 the !earned
Sinigle Judgeallowed the petition abd directed that the seniority list should revised'
by the St•ate Government so as to give seniority to the appellant ove'lf
respondents Nos. 3 to 19.
.
The State Government and the Director of Health Services Punjab
thereupon preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 446 of 1969 before a
Division Bench of the High Court. Some of the respondents Nos. 3 to
19 also preferred separate letters Patent Appeal No. 433 of 1969. Both
these Letters Patent Appeals were heard by a Division Bench of the
B·
c
D
E
H
A. s. AHLUWALIA v. ·PUNJAB (Bhagwati, i.)
87
'
A
High Court. The learned· Judges constituting the Division Bench took
the view that the memorandum dated 25th October, 1965 laid down
the principle determining seniority only for Deputy Directors · and
Assistant Directors in the Public Health Service on integration in PCMS
Class I and did not provide as to how seniority of Medical Officers
already in PCMS Class I shall be determined vis-a-vis Deputy Directors
8 . and Assistant Directors on integration. It was, therefore, competent to
the State Government to issue the order dated 4th December 1967
determining that the seniority of respondents Nos. 3 (.) 19 shall be
reck_oned fro.m t~e ct.ate of their order of appointment, namely, 8th
April, 1964 me_sp~ctive as to when they assumed charge of their higher
posts. The sen10ny of respondents Nos. 3 to 19 was accordingly liable
~? b~ reckoned from 8th ~pril, 1964 and since the seniority of Dr. JagJll Smgh and the appellant commenced only from 25th April, 1964,
r~spondents Nos. 3 to I~ were rightly shown as senior to Dr. Jagjit
c
D
£
G
H
Smgh and the appellant. The learned Judges on this view allowed the
appeal and upheld the provisional joint seniority list o~ PCMS Class I
showing respondents Nos. 3 to 19 above Dr. Jagjit Singh and the
appellant in seniority. That led to the filing of the present appeal with
special leave obtained from this Court.
We must consider what was the true scope and ambit of the principle 01fi seniority laid down in clause (2)(ii) of the memorandum dated
25th October, 1965. Did it apply in relation to officers coming from
both services for the purpose of determining their inter se seniority in
the integrated service or was it intended to provide a principle for determining seniority only for Deputy Directors and Assistant Directors on
their integration in PCMS Class I ? To answer this question it is necessary to understand what was the problem before the State Government
which it -set out to solve by issuing clause (2) (ii) of the memorandum
dated 25th October, 1965. The position which then obtained was.
that with effect from 15th July, 1964 Class I of Public Health Service,
consisting of the posts of Deputy Directors and Assistant Directors, was
integrated with PCMS Class I and since officers coming from these
two different services were to be absorbed and fitted into one integrated
service, it was necessary to evolve a fair and just principle for determining their inter se seniority 'in the integrated service. It was for this
purpose that the State Government issued clause (2) (ii) of the memo~
randum dated 25th October, 1965. What clause (2)(ii) provided was
that on integration in PCM~ Class I, the seniority of Deputy Directors
and Assistant Directors vis-a-·vis the other officers in that service should
be determined by reference to the length of continuous service from the
date of appointment, that is, the continuous service of such integrating
officer should be reckoned from the date of his appointment in his
group-whether it be in PCMS Class I or in Public Health Service Class
I-and the inter se seniority should be arranged acc01:ding to the length
of such continuous service. The measure or yard-stick for adjusting
inter se seniority of the officers coming from the two services should be
the length of continuous service of each from the date of appointment
in !\is group. This was the principle laid down in clause (2) (ii) of the
memorandum dated 25th October, 1965 for bringing about integration
· of the two services by adjusting the inter se seniority of the officers in
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 3 s.c.R.
the integrated service. There was n~ ?ccasion _or. nee~ at that time to
lay down any P!inciple _for
determmmg. s_emonty inter s~ Deputy
Directors or Assistant Directors. The semonty of Deputy Directors or
Assistant Directqrs inter se in Pubic Health Service Class I was already
determined and known and clause (2)(ii) of the memorandum dated
25th October, 1965 in fact provided that the adjustment of inter se
seniority in the integrated service according to the length of continuous service frorrl the date of appoinment should be subject to the condition that "the seniority of persons in the present seniority list will not
be disturbed." Clause (2)(ii) of the memorandum dated 25th October,
1965, was, therefore, not intended to provide for seniority of Deputy
Directors or Assistant Directors inter se in their parent service. What.fever was the inter se seniority of Deputy Directors or Assistant Directors
in their parent service was not to be disturbed while adjusting the
seniority of the officers in the integrated service and so also was the
inter se seniority of the officers already in PCMS Class I not to be
violated while fixing seniority in the integrated service. There c:an,
therefore, be no doubt that on a proper interpretation of clause (2)(ij)
of the memorandum dated 25th October, 1965 the principle of length
of continuous service from the date of appointment was applicabfo to
officers coming from both the services for the purpose of fixing . their
inter se seniority in the integrated service.
Now, it is true that clause (2) (ii) of the memorandum dated 25th
October, 1965 was not a statutory provision having the Jiorce of law
and was merel); an administrative instruction issued by the State Government in exercise of its executive. power. But that does not present
any difficulty, for it is now well settled by several decisions of this Court
that where no statutory rules are made regulating recruitment or conditions of service; the State Government always can in exercise of its
executive power issue administrative instructions providing Jior recruitment and laying down conditions of service. Vide B. N. Nagarajan
v. State of My$ore(") and Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan &
A.nr.(2 )
It was, therefore, competent to the State Government to
issue clause (2)(ii) of the memorandum dated 25th October, 1965 in
exercise of its r,xecutive power laying down the principle to be followed
in adjusting inter se seniority of the officers in the integrated setvice.
But the question then arises whe.ther the State Government could
issue the order dated 4th December, 1967 providing that the senic)rity
of respondents Nos. 3 to 19 shall be reckoned from the date of issue
of their order . of appointment, namely, 8th Ai:iril, 1964 irrespe<:tive
as to when they assumed charge of the higher posts, if such order was
in contravention of the principle of seniority laid down in clause
(2) (ii) of the memorandum· dated 25th October, 1965. The argument
urged on behalf of the State Government was that it was competent to
it to fix an assumed date on which the continuous service of respondents Nos. 3 to 19 should be deemed to have commenced for the purpose of determining their seniority in the integrated service, and the
order dated 4th December, 1967 was, therefore, not beyond its power.
co [l966J 3 s.c.i6s2.
rz> [1%SJ 1 s.c.R. 111.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
C·
D
E
F
G
H
A. s. AHLUWALIA v. PUNJAB (Bhagwati, J,,
8 9
But we do not think this argument is well founded. Clause (2) (ii) of
the memorandum dated 25th October, 1965 pwvided that the seniority
of the officers in the Integrated service shall be determined by reference to the length of continuous service from the date of appointment
in the group within their respective service. What was,
therefore, .
required to be taken into account was the actual length of continuous
service from· the date of appointment and not the length of continuous
service reckoned from an artificial date given by the Stak Government.
Now, it is true that clause (2) (ii) of the memorandum dated. 25th
October, 1965 was in the nature of administrative instruction, not
having the force of law, but the State Government could not at its own
sweet will depart from it without rational justification and fix an artificial date for commencing the length of continuous service in the case of
some individual officers only for the purpose of giving them seniority
in contravention of that clause. That would be clearly violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The sweep of articles 14 and 16
is wide and pervasive. These two articles embody the principle of
rationality and they are intended to strike against arbitrary and discriminatory action taken by the 'State'. Where the State Government
departs from a principle of seniority laid down by it, albeit by
administrative instructions; and the departure is without reason .. and
arbitrary, it would directly infringe the guarantee of equality under ·
articles 14 and 16. It is interesting to notice that in the United States
it is now well settled that an executive agency must be rigorously held
to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it
must scrupulously observe those standards on paiOI. of invalidation of
a11 act in violation of them. Vide the judgment of Mr. Justice Frank·
furtei: in Vitaralli v. Seton (11)
This view is of course not based on
the equality clause of the United State Constitution and it is evolved
as a rule of administrative law. But the principle is the sa:me, namely,
that arbitrariness should be eliminated in State action. If, therefore,
we find that the order dated 4th December, 1967 gave an artificial date
from which the continuous service of respondents Nos. 3 to 19 shall
be deemed to have commenced, though in fact and in truth their continuous service commenced from different dates and it was thus in contravention of the principle of seniority laid down in clause (2 )(ii) of
the memorandum dated 25th October, 1965, it would have t@ be held
to be void as being vfolative of articles 14 and 16.
We do not, however, thiilk that the order dated 4th December,
1967 providing that the seniority of respondents Nos. 3 to 19 shall be
reckoned from the date of their appointment, namely, 8th April, 1964
censtituted a departure from the principle of seniority laid down in
clause (2) (ii) of the memorandum dated 25th October, 1965. The
test for determining seniority in the integrated cadre laid down by
clause (2) (ii) of the memora'.ldum dated 25th October, 1965 was the ·
length of .continuous service from the date of appointment iu · the
group. The appellant contended that continuous service in
a . post
could commence only when the incumbent took charge of the post vnd
n~ earlier and, therefore, though respondents Nos. 3 to 19 were pronioted under the 'lrder datecl 8th April, 1964, their continuous service
(1) 359 U.S. 535 at 546-547 : 3 Law. Sd. (Sec.and Series) 10121
90
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 3 s.c.R.
in the posts of promotion in PCMS Class I did not commence until
after 25ih Ap1dl, 1964 when they took charge of their respective posts
or promotion and hence the length of their continuous
servic1~ in
PCMS Class ] was less than that of Dr. Jagjit Singh and the appdlant
in Public Health Service, Class I. This contention is fallacious in that
it fails to give: suffici1:nt importance to the words "from the dat1~ of
appointment and ignores the true meaning and effect of the order
dated 8th April, 1964. First let us see what the words "date of the
order of appointment" mean. Are they synonymous with "date of the
order of appointment"? We think not. An order of appointment may
be of three kinds. It may appoint a person with effect from the date
he assumes charge of the post or it may appoint him with immediate
effect or it may appoint him simpliciter without saying as to when the
appointment shall take effect. Where the order of appointment is of
the fi.rst kind, the appointment would be effective only
when
the
person appointed assumes charge of the post and that would be the
date of his appointment. It would be then that he is appointed. But in
a case of the second kind, which is the one with which we are concerned since the order dated 8th April, 1964 appointed respondents
Nos. 3 to 19 to PCMS Class I "with immediate effect", the appointment would be effective immediately irrespective as to w~en the person
· appointed assumes charge of the post. The date of his appointim~nt in
such a case would be the same as the date of the order of appointment.
J t is, therefore, obvious that so far as respondents Nos. 3 to 19 were
concerned, th~ date of their appointm~nt was 8th April, 1964 and the
length of their continuous service in PCMS Class I was required to be
n:ckoned from that date. It is true that respondents Nos. 3 to 19 riid
not assume charge of their respective posts of promotion until after
25th Ap•·il, 1964, but that makes no difference because the length of
continuous service is to be counted from the date of appointment on
the hypothesis that once the appointment is effective the person concnned is in the post and his service in the post is deemed to have
commenced though und~r the rules governing
his
conditions of
sef'1ice he may .not be entitled to the salary and allowances attached
to the post until he assumes charge of the post. The continuous service
of respondents Nos. 3 to 19 in PCMS Class I, therefore, commenced
from 8th April, 1964 and since that was longer than the continuous
service of Dr. Jagjit Singh and the appellant in Public Health Service
Class I, which commenced only on 25th April,
1964,
respondents
Nos. 3 to 19 were entitled to be placed senior to Dr. Jagjit Singh and
the appellant in the joint se11iority list of the integrated PCMS Class I.
We, therefore, uphold the joint seniority list of
the
integrated
PCMS Class I prepared by the State Government giving seniority to
respondents ~'.os. 3 to 19 over Dr. Jagjit Singh and the appellant and
dismiss the appeal. There will be no order as to costs.
P.B.R.
Ap,peal dismissed.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G