# G.P. DOV AL AND OTHERS v. THE CHIEF SJ;:CRETARY GOVERNMENT OF U.P. AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1985] 1 S.C.R. 70
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1984-07-18
- **Bench:** D.A. Desai, A.P. Sen
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/g-p-dov-al-and-others-v-the-chief-sj-cretary-government-of-u-p-and-ors-8724
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

Constitution of India 1950, Articles 14, 16, and 32.
Seniority-P'ixatlon of-Past service to be given credit if stop-gap
arrangement is followed .by confir1nation.
Khandsarl Licei·sing Scheme-.1ppointmer:t of Khandsari lnspectorsD
lnter-se seniof'ity of ad hoc appointees and di~ect recruits through Public Service
Co111mis.1ion- Fixation of- ft'hetlter to be reckoned Jron1 date of appoint111ent to
tenzporary po.H or fron1 date of approval by Public Service Conunission.
E
F
Provisional Seniority List issued-Violation of fimdan1ental right guaranteed under Articles 14 ar.d 16-Burden of proof on whon lies,
Provisio
0.a/ Seniority List isrued in 197J-1¥rir petilion·fi:ed h1 1983Whether /iqb/e to be disrnissed on g•·ound of latch~s or delay.
Wor,:s and Phrases. 'Or fro111 the date of the order of the first appoint1nent if such appoint1ne11t is followed by co11/innation'-A·fea11ing of.
In the year 1958-59 the State Governn1ent framed the l(handsari
Licensing Scheme to regulate the supply of sugarcane to sugar factories.
Posts of Khandsari Inspectors initially designated as Licensing Inspectors
were created in the pay-scale of Rs. 120-250.
Petitioners in the writ
G
petitions were appointed as Kbandsari lnspecto:s between March aind M<.ty,
1960. Thereafter so1ne of ihc respondents were recruited as J(handsari
Inspectors and along with some others who we.re recruited departmentally
were approved by Public Service Commission. On March, 22, 1971 the
third respondent-the Sugar Comm1ssioner-cin:ulatcd a provisional seniority
JI
list of Kbandsari Inspectors.
G.P. DOYAL v. ClllEF-StCRETARY
71
The peti•io,crs fepresi;rtted against the seniority list contcbding; that
,\
•
they were assigned lower place in the seniority list even though they wer~
recruited earlier and have b~en continuously in service. The representations
having been rej~cted, writ petitions were filed in this Court.
Jn their writ pi!titions to this Court, the petitioners contended that
when recruitment .was made ia l be year 1S60, the post of Khandiari
[ospector was not within the purview of the Public Service Commission and
that they "'°·ere regularly ._recruited to posts which were temporarily sanction·
ed but indefinitely continued and therefore, in reckoning their seniority, thCy
must be given the benefit or the length of continuous . officiation, and that '
once approval is granted by the Public Service Commission it would relate
back to the date of their appointment and that the previous length of service
cannot be ignored or denied in computing seniority in the absence of any -
statutory rUle or administra~ive instruction. It was further pointed out that
y
petitioner Nos. 4 to 8. who were recru
11s of 1961 had b~en a~signed places
Nos. 30. 34, 42, 35 and 31 respectively i.i the seniority list whil.: recruits
of 1963 had scored a march over them-in the provisionll seniority list.
The respondents contested the writ petitions contending that by a.
Goy~rnment order temporary post of Licensing Inspectors were re-designated
as Khandsari Inspectors 2nd that the post right from inception was \\'·ithin
the purview of the Public S_ervice Comrllission, that on the framing of the·
Kbaadsari Lincensing Scheme, it becan1e necessary to urgently appoint
Inspectors to implement the scheme, and therefOre the third respondenttbe Sagar Co~missioner who was the appointing authority pending reg~lar :
selection through open cOmpetition thrDugh Public Service Commission
proceeded to make the appointments or the p~titioners as stop.gap or ..id ho~
nature and that their appointment created no right to the post. The drawing
up C'f the t~ntative seniority list was justified J.S being based on the_ recoma _
mendJ.tion'i of the Public Service Commission, and it was submitted that the
service v. hich can be taken info consideration for determining
~be length orcon1inuous officiation must commence from the date Or. substantive appoint·
ment and that the provisional seniority 1ist had been drawn up keep

## Text

_Characters 0–39,983 of 44,216. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39983 for what follows._

A
B
c
10
G.P. DOV AL AND OTHERS
v.
THE CHIEF SJ;:CRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF U.P. AND ORS.
July 18, 1984
[D.A. DESAI AND A.P. SEN, JJ .]
Constitution of India 1950, Articles 14, 16, and 32.
Seniority-P'ixatlon of-Past service to be given credit if stop-gap
arrangement is followed .by confir1nation.
Khandsarl Licei·sing Scheme-.1ppointmer:t of Khandsari lnspectorsD
lnter-se seniof'ity of ad hoc appointees and di~ect recruits through Public Service
Co111mis.1ion- Fixation of- ft'hetlter to be reckoned Jron1 date of appoint111ent to
tenzporary po.H or fron1 date of approval by Public Service Conunission.
E
F
Provisional Seniority List issued-Violation of fimdan1ental right guaranteed under Articles 14 ar.d 16-Burden of proof on whon lies,
Provisio
0.a/ Seniority List isrued in 197J-1¥rir petilion·fi:ed h1 1983Whether /iqb/e to be disrnissed on g•·ound of latch~s or delay.
Wor,:s and Phrases. 'Or fro111 the date of the order of the first appoint1nent if such appoint1ne11t is followed by co11/innation'-A·fea11ing of.
In the year 1958-59 the State Governn1ent framed the l(handsari
Licensing Scheme to regulate the supply of sugarcane to sugar factories.
Posts of Khandsari Inspectors initially designated as Licensing Inspectors
were created in the pay-scale of Rs. 120-250.
Petitioners in the writ
G
petitions were appointed as Kbandsari lnspecto:s between March aind M<.ty,
1960. Thereafter so1ne of ihc respondents were recruited as J(handsari
Inspectors and along with some others who we.re recruited departmentally
were approved by Public Service Commission. On March, 22, 1971 the
third respondent-the Sugar Comm1ssioner-cin:ulatcd a provisional seniority
JI
list of Kbandsari Inspectors.
G.P. DOYAL v. ClllEF-StCRETARY
71
The peti•io,crs fepresi;rtted against the seniority list contcbding; that
,\
•
they were assigned lower place in the seniority list even though they wer~
recruited earlier and have b~en continuously in service. The representations
having been rej~cted, writ petitions were filed in this Court.
Jn their writ pi!titions to this Court, the petitioners contended that
when recruitment .was made ia l be year 1S60, the post of Khandiari
[ospector was not within the purview of the Public Service Commission and
that they "'°·ere regularly ._recruited to posts which were temporarily sanction·
ed but indefinitely continued and therefore, in reckoning their seniority, thCy
must be given the benefit or the length of continuous . officiation, and that '
once approval is granted by the Public Service Commission it would relate
back to the date of their appointment and that the previous length of service
cannot be ignored or denied in computing seniority in the absence of any -
statutory rUle or administra~ive instruction. It was further pointed out that
y
petitioner Nos. 4 to 8. who were recru
11s of 1961 had b~en a~signed places
Nos. 30. 34, 42, 35 and 31 respectively i.i the seniority list whil.: recruits
of 1963 had scored a march over them-in the provisionll seniority list.
The respondents contested the writ petitions contending that by a.
Goy~rnment order temporary post of Licensing Inspectors were re-designated
as Khandsari Inspectors 2nd that the post right from inception was \\'·ithin
the purview of the Public S_ervice Comrllission, that on the framing of the·
Kbaadsari Lincensing Scheme, it becan1e necessary to urgently appoint
Inspectors to implement the scheme, and therefOre the third respondenttbe Sagar Co~missioner who was the appointing authority pending reg~lar :
selection through open cOmpetition thrDugh Public Service Commission
proceeded to make the appointments or the p~titioners as stop.gap or ..id ho~
nature and that their appointment created no right to the post. The drawing
up C'f the t~ntative seniority list was justified J.S being based on the_ recoma _
mendJ.tion'i of the Public Service Commission, and it was submitted that the
service v. hich can be taken info consideration for determining
~be length orcon1inuous officiation must commence from the date Or. substantive appoint·
ment and that the provisional seniority 1ist had been drawn up keeping in
view the date of approval by the Public /Service Commi!:osion in respect of
each candidate and that there was no error in drawiol up the seniority list.
It was further contended_ that promotions which were granted on the basis
of the provisional seniority list were not questioned by the peittioners and
~.:.;ey have acquiesced in it, and that the petiiioners bad moved the Court
<.fl er a long un~explained d~lay and that the Court should not grant any
relief.'
Allowing the \Veit Petitions,
c
a.·
II
A
B
72
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1985] I s.c IL
HELD: (I) The impugned seniority fot dated March 21, 1971 in
respect of Khandsari Inspectors i11 quashed. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed
to draw up a fresh seniority list based ·on the principle of length of
continuous officiation reckoned fron1 the date of first appointment if the
appointment is followed by confinn:1.tion i.e. selection/approval by the State
Public Service Commission. [87 F]
(2) (i) The Memorandum of 1940 mert:ly prescribed guidcli.nes for the
departments of the Secretariat either to frame statutory rules or executive
instructions governing conditions of service in resi:ect of existing services if
there are no rules, or thty may be modified or amended so as to bring them
generally in conformity with the 1940 Order, .and whenever a new post or a
C
new cadre in a service is set up to frame rules in conformity wHh guidelines
prescribed in the 1940 Order. The 1940 Order does not purport to lay
down conditions of service governing any cadre either specifically or
generally. It provides a model and unless the model is adiJptcd it is not.
binding. [82 D-F)
D
E
F
G
(ii) Assu1ning that the model principle set out in the 1940 ()rder has
a binding
~ffe~t the impugned seniority list does not conform to the
prescrib,d guidelines and is invalid. (85 F]
(3) (i) A fair rule of seniority should crdioarily take Into account
the past service if the stop-gap arrangement is followed by confirmation. f86 E]
(ii) If a stop-gap appointment is made and the
appointc1~ appears
before the Public Service Commission when the latter proceeds to select the
candidates and is selected, there is no justification for ignoring past service.
There is also no juHification for two person!: selected in the sarr:1e manner
being differently treated. If once a person in a stop.gap arrangement is
confirmed ia his
P->~t by pro;:ier selectioJ, his past service has to be given
credit and he has to b~ assigJed seniority accordingly unless a
rule~ to the
contrary is 1nade.
In the instant case, that has not been done to all the
petitioners. The error is app:irent in the casf: of petitioner No. l and
respondent No. 7. [86 B-D]
\
(iii) When a seniority list is chaiJenged as being violative' of the
guarantee of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 and prin1a facie it
appears that those who came into the cadre later on scored a march over
those who were already in the cadre, it would be for the authority justifying
the seniority list to plead and point out the rule for deteuniniag seniority
on the basis of which the list is drawn up. If any such rule is pleaded it
ff
would be for those impugning the seniority list to aver and establish that
•
G.P. DOVAL v. CHIEF SECRETARY
the a11eged seniority rule is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed
A
by Articles 14 and 16. [78 G-H; 79A]
(4) (i) It is open to the Government to lay down general conditions
of service governing all services in the State either by rules frrmed under
Section 241 of the Gove.rnmcnt of India Act 1935, or on the advent of the
Constitution under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. In the
B
absence of statutory rules, conditions of service in a particular cadre may be
governed by exrcutive instructions issu~d by the Government in exercise of
its execntive power. [81 C-E]
(ii) In the absence of any other rule valid for detern1ing seniority
under Article 16, seoiority being determined by the length of contiuuous
officiation has bee.a accep'ed as valid by the courts. [82 H; 83 A]
P.S. Mahal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [1984] 3 S.C.R. 8,J
and Bishan Sarup Gupta v. Unio·i of India, [1975] 1 SCR 104, referred to.
(5) Model Ru'e 11 suggests as guidelines two independent principles
for determining seniority; namely ( 1) seniority. should be reckon~d from the
date of substantive appointment, and (2) from the date of the order of first
appointment if such appointm_ent is folio.wed by confirmation. (84 A]
In the instant case, recitals in the appointment order do not spell·out
that the appointees were to hold stop.gap arrangement lill a candidate
selected by the Public Service Commission is made ayailable.
On the contrary, the recitals clearly indicate that those appointees will have to faco the
approval test by the Public Service Com1nission .. If petitioner Nos. 1 and 2
came to be appointed in 1960 and respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 came to be
appointed in 1961 and the appointment of each of them had to be approved
by the Public Service Commission, once the approval is granted the same
will relate back to the date of first appointment. That is the meaning of the
expression in Model No. l l ; 'or from the date of the order of the first
appointment if such appointment is followed by confirmation.' (85 A-C]
(6) Where officiating appointement is followed by confirmation unles,
a contrary rule is shown. the sefvice rendered as officiating
appointment
cannot be ignored for reckoning lengib of continuous officiation for determi~!ng. the pla~e in the seniority list. [86 G]
Baleshwar Dass and Ors. etc. v. State of U.P. and Ors. etc., [198 l]
l SCR 449, referred to.
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
H
14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(l98Sj 1 S.C.k.
In lh ~ instant case, respond1Jnts 1 to 3 helve no~ finalised the seniority .
list for a period of 1nore than 12 years and arc operating the
~arne for
further promotion to the utter disadv.1ntage of the petitioners. Petitioners
\vent on making representations after tepresentation which did not yield any
response. reply or relief.
Further, the petitioners belong to the !owe~
c:-helons of service and it is not difficult to visu::i.lise that they may find
it
extremely difficult to
ru~h to the court. The· contention that th~ writ
petitions should be thrown out on the ground of delay,
latch,~s and
acquicsence must therefore be rejected. [87 c~o]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No1. 5105-13 of 1983.
(Under article 32 of the ConstitJ.tion f India)
M.K Ramamurthi, Mrs. Tndra Sawlmey, Mrs. C. Malhotra and
M. A. Krishnamoorthy for the Petitioners.
Yogeshwar Prasad, Mrs. Rani Chabra, Gopa/ Subramaniam and
Mrs. Sobha Dikshit for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DESAI, J. The petitioners in this group of petitions under Art.
32 of the Constitution were inducted as Khandsari Inspectors
between March, 19 60 and I 96 4
Respondents 4 to 19 were also
recruited as Khandsari Inspectors on different dates.
Respondents
I and 2 are the Chief Secretary, Govt. o' U. P. and the Secretary,
Industries respectively of the u. P. Government and respondent
No. 3 is the Sugar Commissioner of U. P.
The dispute amongst
the petitioners and the respondents 4 to 19 is about intcr-se
seniority between them in the cadre of Khandsari Inspectors.
It appears that in the year 195"-59, the State Gov<:rnment
framed what is styled as 'Khandsari Licensing Scheme' to regulate
the supply of sugarcane to sugar factories by G 0. No. 4 58 8 ( 1)
XVIII-A-680/59 dated November 21, 1959.
Posts of Khandsari
Inspectors initially designated as Licensing Inspectors were created
in the pay·scales of Rs. 120-250·
Petitioners Nos. I, 2 and 3
were appointed as Khandsari Inspectors between March and May,
1960.
Thereafter some of the respondents were recruited as
•
•
•
G.1'. DOYAL v. CHIEF SECRETARY (Desai, J.)
75
Khandsari Inspectors and some others who were recruited departA
mentally were approved by the Public Service· Commission.
On
March 22, 1971, the third respondent --the Sugar Commission
circulated a provisional seniority list of Khandsari Inspectors. The
grievance of the petttioners is that some of the petitioners have
been assigned lower place in the seniority list even though they
B
were recruited earlier and have been continuously in service.
To
illustrate, petitioners pointed out that petitioners I to 3 have been
placed at Serial Nos 25, 29 and 27 respectively though ali of them
were recruits of 1960 while respondent No. 7-J.S. Negi, who was
recruited on March 2 3, J 961 was assigned the place at Serial
C
No. 15 and respondent No. 4 0. N. Chatuivedi, who was recruited on March 23, 1961 was shown at Serial No. 6.
Similarly,
respondent No. 9-P.N. Rai, who was also recruited on March 23,
1961 was shown at Serial No. 17 and respondent No. 5 was
shown at Serial No. 8.
The petitioners further pointed out that
petitloners Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, who were recruits of l 961
have been assigned places Nos. :o, 34, 42, 35 and 31 respectively
'
. ,
whie recruits of J 9f3 have scored a march over them in the
provisional seniority list.
The petitioners assert that when the
D
recruitment was made in the year 1960, the post of Khandsari
E
Inspector was not within the purview of the Public Service
Commission and that they were regualrly recruited to posts which
were temNrarily sanctioned and indefinitely continued till today
and therefore, in reckoning the seniorty, they must be given the
benefit of the length of continuous officiation.
They further
F
contend that when the post of Kh.andsari Jnspecto_r was later
brought within the purview of the Public Service Commission,
the names of the petitioners who were already recruited in service
as also of some of the respondents were forwarded to the Public
Service Commission for approval and except petitioner No 9s. P. Gupta: the names of rest of the petitioner were approved by
the Public Service Commission on September 30, 1963, the relevant date in the case of petitioner No. 9 is April 14,. 1978.
The
petitioners a5sert _that even assuming that their appointment
would be regular after approval of the public Service Commission,
yet once such approval is granted' it would relate back to the .
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
76
StiPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985J l s c.R.
date of appointment and the previous length of service cannot . be
ignored or denied in computing their seniority in the absence of
any siatutory rule or administrative instruction which has the force
of law.
The petitioners further aver that in the absence of any
other statutory rule or administrative instruction for determining
seniJrity. length of continuous officiation provides a valid principle
for determining seniority.
Viewed from this angle, petitioners
l to 3 would be senior to all the respondents and the placement
of the remaining petitioners vis-a.vis the respondents will have to
be recomputed.
On the circulation of the p1ovisionnl seniority
list, the petitioners submitted vari0us representations pointing out
the error in drawing-up the provisional seniority list but till this
day no reply was given nor any final seniority list circulated nor
reasons assigned for rejecting the representations.
The petit10ners
further say that despite their representation, respondents 1, 2 and
3 are operating the tentative seniority list for making further
promotions to the post of Khandsari Officer and Assistant Sugnr
Commi8'ioner and thereby they are being denied eqnality of
opportunity in the matter of promotion.
The petitioners accordingly questioned by these writ petitions the validity and legality
of the provisional seniority list asserting that as the final seniority
list is not being drawn up and as the representations arc being
ignored and yet the provisional seniority list is being operated to
the disadvantage of the petitioners thereby denying them equality
of opportunity in the matter of promotion which action of t~e
respondents I to 3 is violative of Arts. 14 and 16·
Kailash Narain Pandey,
Additional Sugar Commissioner
filed affidavit in-opposition
It was admitted that by the Govt.
Order dated November 21. 1 ~ 59 temporary posts of Licensing
Inspectors later redesignated as Khandsari Inspectors in the pay
scale of Rs. 120-250 were created but according to him as the
maximum of the scale was over Rs. 200 right from its inception,
the post was within the purview of the Public Service Commission
in view of Regu;ation 5 (a) of Appointment Department Misc.
No. 99/II-B-151·60 dated January 29, 1954 issued under the
Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (Limitation of Fune-
•
G.P. DOYAL v. CHIEF SECRETARY (Desa;, J.)
77
lions) Regulations, 19 54.
It was then stated that on the flaming
A
of the Khandsari Licensing 8cheme, it became necessary to urgently appoint lμspectors to implement the sche.me and therofore,
the third respondent ·-·Sugar Commissioner as Appointing Authority pending regular selection through open competition by the
Public Service Commission proceeded to make appointments and
1B
the appointment of the petitioners were of a stopgap or ad-hoc
nature and that it created no right to the post.
It was admitt~d
;
that petitioners Nos I and 2 were recruited afte1 holding depart_.__..,
mental competitive test on March 4, J 960Petitioner No. 3,
who was then working as a Clerk in Cane Union Federation Ltd.,
C
Lucknow was selected on May 24, I 960 by applying a weeding
out test.
Petitioners Nos. 4 to
8 were recruited after holding
qualifying test and interview on 23rd March, 196 J and Petitioner
No. 9 was appointed as and by way of stopgap arrangement
It
was conteuded that the petitioners were appointed on an ad hoc
and temporary basis as a measure of stopgap arrangement. It was
conceded that all the petitioners· except petitioner No. 9, were
approved by the Public Service Commission for regular appointment in the year 1%3, to be specific on 30th September, 1963 and
·they have continued unmterruptedly in the posts of Khandsari Inspectors. It was further averred that within a period of one year and
seven months from the date of appointment of the petitioners the
State Public Service Commission selected candidates to replace the
already working unapproved Licensing Inspectors on the request of
the Department and sent a list of approved candidatos on September
14, 1961, but only 5 out of 44 such selected candidates joined and
hence the Department has to permit the petitioners to continue
though according to the third respondent notice of termination of
service were served on some of the petitioners.· It was further po:nted
out that when the State Public Service Commission proceeded to
recommend candidates for the post of Khandsari Inspectors, some
of the petitioners applied for such posts, but their applications were
rejected at the stage of scrutiny.
But on a request from the Department the State Public Service Commission entertained the applications, called the petitioners for interview and approved them. It
was admitted that except petitioner No. 9 all the rest of the petitioners
were approved by the Public Service Commission on September 30,
1963. Justifying the drawing-up of the tentative seniority list as
jleing based on recommendations of Public Service Commission, it
'
-
. .
.
.
.
'
'
D
E
F
G
r l
JI
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
78
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985] l S.C.R.
was said that the service which can be taken into consideration for
determining the length of continuous officiation must commence
from ,the date of substantive appointment and accordingly the provisional seniority list has been drawn-up keeping in view the date
of approval by the Public Scrv1co Commission in respect of each
candidate. It was averred that if this principle is valid for the
purpose of Art. 16, there is no error in drnwing·up the seniority. It
was specifically stated that it was open to the Government to ignore
officiating service or service rendered on appointment in an ad hoc
or stopgap arrangement. It was broadly stated that before a man
can claim to have his seniority determined in the cadre, he must
belong to the cadre and he can only enter the cadre on substantive
appointment.
The rival contentions would bring into focus the controversy
between the parties.
The impugned provisional seniority list dated
March 22, 1971 is drawn-up on the length of continuous officiation
determined by the date of selection)approval of each person be the
State Public Service Commission.
ln the process service prior to
the approval by the Public Service Commission is wholly ignored
while reckoning seniority with the result that the recruits of 1961
have scored a march over those who were recruited earlier in the
cadre and have been uninterruptedly officiating in the post and who
at a later date were approved by the Public Service Commission
for appointment as Khandsari Inspectors.
The question is : where
on account of exigencies of service, recruitment to a post within the
purview of the Public Service Commission is made by the appointing
authority, but at a later dote the Public Service Commission puts its
seal of approval on such an appointee, whether the continuous and
uninterrupted service rendered by such appointee prior to the approval by the Public Service Commission can and should be taken into
computation while determining seniority based on the principle of
length of continuous officiation ?
When a seniority list is challenged as being violative of the
guarantee of equality enshrined in Arts. 14 and 16 and primafacie
it appears that these who came into the cadre later on scored a
march over those who were already in the cadre, it would be for
the authority justifying the senior;ty list to plead and point out the
rule for determining seniority on the basis of which the list is drawnup. If any such rule is pleaded, it would be for those impugning
the seniority list to aver and estahli sh that the alleged seniority
•
-
G.P. DOYAL "· CHIEF S!'CRETARY (Desai, J.)
79
rule is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Arts. 14
A
and 16.
In the affidavit-in.opposition filed by the Additional Sugar
Commissioner on behalf of respondents l to 1, i: was asserted that
the impugned seniority list of the Khandsari Inspectors was drawnup on the principle of the length of continuous officiation reckoned
from the date of selection/approval by the Public Service Commission in respect of each employee belonging to the cadre. It is
necessary to refer to this aspect because the aver1nc11t is Yague a11d
of a ·general ncture and later on at the hearing of the petitions
reliance was placed on memo No. 0·66/H-233·1938 dated January
30, 1940 ('1940 Order' for short) for sustaining the senior;ty list,
·the affidavit being conspicuously silent with regard to this order.
There is not a whisper of the 1940 Order in the whole of the affidavit-in-opposition.
However, if the respondents would be in a
position to justify the seniority list on any existing statutory rule
or administrative instruction which has been invariably followed,
it would not be proper to attach too much importance to the vagueness in drawing-up pleadings shifting, the stand in the course of the
proceedings. It must, however, be made clear that Mr. Gopal
Subramaniam, learned counsel who appeared for respondent No.
I to 3 attempted to reconcile the averments in the affidavit and
the oral submissions made at the hearing of the petitions by
urging that when it is said in the affidavit that the seniority in
respect of each member of the cadre was reckoned .on the princi-
·ple ~f length of continuous officiation commencing from the date
of selection/approval of each member by the State Public Service
Commission. respondents 1 to 3 had the 1940 Order in mind.
It is therefore, neoessary first to examine the nature and
character of the 1940 Order and whether it lays down either by
way of a statutory rule or administrative instruction a binding
rule of seniority for determining the seniority in the cadre of
Khandsari Inspectors. If it does, it will have to be further
ascertained whether upon its true construction, the relevant rule
excludes any service rendered hy a member of the service prior
to his approval/selection by the State Public Service Commission.
The 1940 Order styled as a Memorandum was not annexed
(o (he
affidavit-in-o~position·
A copy of it was submitted a\
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
'"
80
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1985) 1 S.C.R.
A
the time of hearing of the petitions.
In its preamble it proceeds
to recite that in view of the 'Appointment Department Memorandum No. 233(1)/Il-JS dated July 27, 1939 the Department
of Secretariat are informed that under Section 241 (l) (B) and
(2) (b) of the Government of India Act, 1935, rules hav1: to be
B
framed for appointment to the civil services and posts ancl conditions of services of persons serving.' .It further proceeds to state
that 'the existing rules for the various provincial, specialist and
•
c
D
E
subordinate services under the Government should be revised so
as to bring them tu conformity with the provisions of the Government of India Act. 1935 and new rules should also be drawn·up
for services and posts which existed pnor to April l, 1937 but
for which no rules were framed, or which have been created after
that date.' The 1940 Order further recites that enquiries are
being received as to the lines on which either the old existing
rules have to be revised or new ru !es have to be framed. It then
states that 'the general principles which have been acc1:pted by
Government are stated below ' Para 2 of the Order clearly brings
out the nature and character of the 1940 Order, the relevant
portion of which reads as under :
"2·
Among other things the rules should provide
for the following matters.'•
At Item No. 11, seniority is mentioned. Elaborating how
•
the rule about seniority should be drawn-up, the m 'morandum
•
F
proceeds to prescribe guidelines as under :
G
"Seniority in service shall generally be determined
from the date of substantive appointment to a service,
or from the date of the order of fit st appointment. if
such appointment is followed by confirmation In special
cases seniority may be determined in accordance with the
conditions which may suit a particular service.''
After extensively referring to the 1940 Order, it was urged
on behalf of the respondents that the impugned seniority list
is dr~wn-up keepin~ in view the date of appointment, the llatQ
-
~--
-
-
G. p, DOYAL v. CHIEF SECRETARY (Desai, J.)
81
of selection/approval by the Public Service Commission, which is
A
the reievant date for the .Purpose of computing seniority under
G.O. of 1 940 and the date of confirmation by the department
an? date of promotion.
The first question is : does the 1 940 Order lay down a
binding rule of seniority in respect of Khandsari Inspectors ? It
may at once be made clear that the cadre of Khandsari Inspectors
was first formed under 'Khandsari Licensing Scheme' which was
framed somewhere in November, 1959. It is difficult to bejieve
that two decades earlier, a seniority rule for a future cadre was
prescribed. It is of cJurse open to the Government to lay down
general conditions of service governing all services in the State
either by rules framed under Sec. 241 of the Government of
India Act, 1935 or on the advent of the Constitution under the
proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution· It must be conceded
that in the absence of statutory rules, conditions of service in a
particular cadre may be governed by executive instructions issued
by the Government in exercis,e of its executive power. At any
rate, 1940 Order does not purport to lay a statutory rule framed
under Sec. 24 1 of the Government of India Act, 1935 because
the memorandum recites that in vi.ew of the provisions contained
in Sec. 241, rules have to be framed for appointment to civil
service· and posts and conditions of service of persons serving.
lt further recites that rules wiJI have to be framed in respect of
services which may be created for the first time after the advent
of the Government of India Act,
1935.
The
memorandum
further provides that whenever there is an occasion for framing
statutory rules or issuing executive instructions governing condi.
lions of service, there must be some uniformity in this behalf and
accordingly the memorandum proceeded to point out what should
generally be the contents of the rules and on what model they
should be framed. Therefore, unquestionably the memorandum
pre<cr.ibes guidelines for framing rules governing conditions of
ser·vice
The memorandum· is something akin to model standing
orders.
At any rate it does not purport to prescribe statutory
rules Qr executive instructions governing conditions of service.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
82
SUPREME CO.URT REPORTS
(!98:5) I S.C.R.
A
This.further becomes clear from the penultimate paragraph of the
memorandum in which it is stated that the principles set out in
the memorandum will be generally suitable for service or posts
recruitment to which is conducted through the Public Service
B
c
DJ
E
F
G
H
Commission and whenever the departure is made the same should
be justified· Directions are given by
the memorandum that
the departments of the Secretariat should proceed with the revision of the existing service rules or frame rules for new service
and posts under their control in accordance with the: princi·
pies set ont in the memorandum.
The departments were directed
to draw-up the draft rules and when ready tbey were required
to be submitted for the scrutiny of the appointment department
and should be accompanied by a self contained note in which the
important points and deviation from the above principles should
be explained and justified. It is thus abundantly clear that the
memorandum of I 940 merely prescribed guidelines for th1e departments of the Secretariat either to frame statntory rules or executive
instructions governing conditions of service in respect of existing
services, if there are no rules or they may be modified or amended
so as to bring them generally in conformity with the 1940 Order
and whenever a new post or a new cadre in a service is set up to
frame rules in conformity with guidelines prescribed in 1940 Order.
The 1940 Order does not purport to lay down conditions of service
governing any cadre either specifically or gener31ly. It provides a
model and unless the model is adopted, it is commonsense to say
that it is not bind:ng. Therefore, the contention that 1940 Order
prescribes binding conditions of service and which have been
followed in drawing-up the seniority list does not comm(>nd to us
and must be rejected.
Assuming that in the absence of any specific rule to the
contrary having not been shown to have been adopted, the Department accepted the model as the binding one, the next question is :
whether upon its true construction it permits previous service to be
wholly ignored in reckoning seniority.
The model set out at Item No. 11 governing seniority merely
enacts the well-known rule of seniority in Government Service,
· namely, seniority being determined in accordance with length of
co11tinuoμs officiation .. Ip t!w abse11ce of any other rule valid for
·•
'
-
,
G. P. DOYAL v. CHI.El' SECRETARY (Desai, J.)
83
determining seniority under Art. 16 rule or seniority being determined by the length of continuous officiation has been accepted
as valid by the courts. In a very recent opinion of this Court in
P.S. Mahal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.(1) Bha)\Vati, J. after
referring to Bishan Sarup Gupta v. Union of lndia(2) observed as
under:
·'
"There was no specific seniority rule to determine
inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees appointed regularly within their respective quota from
and after 16th January, 1959 and though, in the absence. of
any specific seniority rule, the Court could have applied
the residuary rule based on length of continuous officiation,
the Court did not do so because it felt that since the old
seniority rule had ceased to operate by reason of the infringement of the quota rule, it would be for the Government to devise "a just and fair seniority rule as between
the direct recruits and the promotees for being given effect
to from 16th January, 1959."
Therefore, in the absence of any specific rule of seniority
governing a cadre or a service, lt is well-settled that length of con ti- ·
nuous officiation will provide a more objective and fair rule of
seniority. And that is exactly what the model in the memorandum
prescribes. It says that seniority in service shall generally be determ'ned from the date of substantive appointment to a service. If
the rule were to stop here, the question would arise : what' constiiutes substantive appointment to a post within the purview of the
Public Service Commission ? But the rule does not stop by merely
' saying that the seniority shall generally be determined from the
date of substantive appointment to a service. It further provides
that it may be determined commencing from the date of the order
of the first appointment, but proceeds to qualify the last clause by
providing : 'if such appointment is followed by confirmation'. In
other words, a rule for determining seniority may provide length of
continuous officiation from substantive appointment ~H from the
date Gf the ord~r 0f the first appointment if such appointment
is followed by confirmation. In the latter case, once confirmation
is made and the service till then is uninterrupted and continuous
'it relates back to the date of the order of the first appointment.
(l) [1914] 3 S.C.R. 823.
(2) [1975) I SCR 104,
\
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985] 1 s.c.R. I
Now model Ru!~ 11 sugg~sts. as guidelines two independent principles for determrnmg semonty, namely (I) seniority be reckoned
from the date of substantive appointment and (2) from the date of
the order. oflfirst appoinment, if ~uch appointment is followed by
confirmaho~. Two different startmg points for reckoning seniority
are set out m the model and it is difficult to assume that depa t
.
f
.
r ment
adopted one and rejected the other without making a specifi
1
.
h If
c rue
m that be a .
The question that can then be posed is : what constitut
b
.
t.
eSf
su stanhve appo1~ ment m a cadre which is within the purview of• i
the Public Service Commission. Now. the cadre of Khandsary I
Inspectors was formed m 1959. There 1s no material to shpw that '·
at that time it was within the purview of the Public Service Commission. A vague statement was made that under the Uttar Pradesh
'··
Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations,
J 954, any post with a sanctioned scale, the maximum of whicn
exceeds Rs. 200/- would be within the purview of the Public Service
Commission. ft was therefore, said that the post of Khandsari
Inspector was within the purview of the Public Service Commission ••
It was then urged that as the 'Khandsari Licensing Scheme' was to
~
he urgently implemented, the appointing authority filled-in the posts
pending recruitment by the Public Service Commission. This statement is not borne out by the record. On May 4, 1960, 9 persons
including petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were temporarily appointed as
Licensing Inspectors. The appointment order does not show that the
appointment was pending selection of regular candidates by the
Public Service Commission. In fact, some confusion in this behalf
crept in because a statement was made at the hearing of these petitions that the post of Rhandsari Inspectors came w:ithin the purview'
-
of the Public Service Commission in 1961. Undoubtedly, the post
of Licensing Inspector was created in the first instance upto March,
31, 1960. But it may be mentioned that it has continued uniterrup- •
tedly till today and has become a permanent cadre. Identical
appointment orders was issued in favour of pel!tiornir No. 3 some of
the petitioners including petitioners Nos. 4. 5, 6, 7 and 8 and some of
the responcents including respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and several
others came to be appointed by the Order dated March, 23, 1961.
(Annexure 'B' to the petition). In this appointment order it was
clearly stated that 'on the result of the qualifying test and interview
held for the posts of Khandsari Inspectors in the months of
February, and March, 1961, the candidates as noted in the enclosed
list are temporarily appointed as officiating Khandsari Inspectors iq
-
'
G. P. DOVAf; v. CHIEF SECRETARY (Desai, J.)
85
,,
the scale of Rs. 120-6-210-EB-10-250 plus u9lial dearness
allowance per month subject to final selection bv Public Service Com- .
mission at any Ialer date.' The recitals in the order do not spell-out
that the appointees were to hold stop-gap arrangement till a
candidate by the Public Service Commission is made availahle. On
the contrary, the recitals clearly indicate that those appointees will
l
have to face the approval test by the Public Service Commission.
Now if petitioner Nos. I and 2 came to be appomted in 1960 and
respondents 4, 5 and 6 came to be appointed in 1961 and th~
•appointment of each of them had to be approved by the Public
Service Commission, once the approval is granted, the same will
relate back to the date of first appointment. That i> the meaning of
'the expression in Model No. I I; 'or from the date of the order of the
first app~intment, if such appointment is followed by confirmation·.'
It is not disputed that all the petitioners except Petitioner 4 were
approved by the Public Service Cornmhsion on September, 30, 1963
and yet respondent No. 7-J.S. Negi is shown at S. No. 17 while
petitioner No. l whu joined service on March, 4, 1960 and whose
'appointment was approved on the same day has been assigned S.
No. 27 in the seniority list. If the first appointment is made by not
. following the prescribed procedure but later on the appointee is
'approved making his appointment regular, it is obvious commensense that in the absence of a contrary rule, the approval which
means confirmation by the authority which had the authority power
and jurisdiction to make appointment or recommend for appointment,
will relate back to the date on which first appointment is made and
the entire service will have to be computed in reckoning the ·seniority
according to the length of continuous officiation. That had not been
done in this case. Therefore, assuming that the model principle set
out in the J 940 Order has a binding effect, the impugned seniority
, list docs not conform to the prescribed guideline and would certainly
be invalid.
Once it is shown that the 1940 Order did not prescribe any
binding rule or seniority, but it was a model prescribed for adoption
and the adoption having not been shown, it ,,annot prescribe a
binding rule of seniority. Assuming that it is deemed to have been
adopted the seniority list does not conform to the model as interpreted by us.
Now if there was no binding rule of seniority it is well-settled
that length of continuous officiation prescribes a valid principle of
senfority. The question is from what date the service is to be reckoned ?
A
B
c
I
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
86
SUPREME COURT REPORts
[19851 t s.c.i\.
'
, ,
It was urged that any appointment of a stop-gap nature or pending
the selection by Public Service Commission cannot be taken into
account for reckoning seniority. In other words, it was urged that
to be in the cadre and to enjoy place in the seniority list, the service
rendered in a substantive capacity can alone be taken into consideration,, We find it difficult to accept this bald and wide submission.
Each case will depend upon its facts aiid circumstances. If a stopgap appointment is made and the appointee app1:ars before the J
Public Service Commission when the !alter proceeds to select the
candidates and is selected, we see no justification for ignoring his ,
past service.