# TEJINDER SINGH SANDHU v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1978] 3 S.C.R. 716
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-04-25
- **Bench:** Y. V. Chandraciiud, D. A. Desai, R. S. Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/tejinder-singh-sandhu-v-state-of-punjab-and-ors-7420
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

c
D
E
F
G
H
Seniority and Promotion, claim to-Whether a iunior in Cla.<is 11 service,
who by a chancy circumstance joined earlier in the Class I post and co1npleted
his probation in that post before his sPniors, clahn seniority in Class I post for
furlher promotion-Seniority in Class II has to prevail in ranking u•hen several
officers are appointed to Class I on an ad hoc basis and also con1p{eted their
probation and when per1nanent vacancies occur in that cadre of Class !-
Applicability of Govt. Memo No. 9448-Agr. 1(1)65/1583 dt. 13-4-66 and
•~-
Punjab-Agri. Service Rules, 1947, 10 to 16.
, ,........__..._
The appellant was junior to Respondents 2 and 3 in the Class ll Punjab
Agricultural Service.
On August 2, 1965 the appellant and Respondent No. 3
were pron1oted on an ad hoc basis as Deputy Directors of Agriculture a post
borne on the cadre of Class I service. The appellant took charge of the post
on August 4, 1965 being at headquarters, while respondents No. 3 joined on
18·8·65. Respondent No. 2 who was senior to Respondent No. 3 and the appellant could not be promoted earlier as he was on deputation with the Punjab
Agricultural University and he was promoted on 22-2·67 i.e. after his return
to parent department. The appellant, Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3
therefore completed their probation on 3-8-1967, 21-2-1969 and 1-3-1968 respectively.
On 14-10-71, the Government of
Punjab published a
tentative
seniority list in which the appellant was shown as junior to resoondents 2 and 3.
On that basis respondents 2 and 3 were promoted as Joint Directors of Agriculture \V.e.f. 10-7-1973 and 16-7-73 respectively.
As his representation for
considering his claim for seniority and promotion by virtue of his long continuous service in Class II post and also his earlier completion of probation that
the respondents failed, the appell<'].nt filed a writ petition in the High Court on
16-8-1973 contending that the promotion of respondents 2 and 3 to the post of
Joint Director was illegal being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution and
den1anding that in recognition of his superior claim arising by virtue of seniority,
he should be pron1oted and confirmed in the post of Joint Director. The High
Court disn1issed the Writ Petition but granted a certificate of fitness to appeal to
this Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The High Court was right in taking the view that respondents
2 and 3 were entitled to be appointed as Joint Directors of Agriculture
in
preference to the appellant on the basis of their seniority. [720 DJ
2. Since all of then1 were appointed to Class I on an ad hoc basis and
since they had all completed their probation in Class I post, when permanent
vacancies o.:cnrred in that cadre, their seniority in Class II has to prevail in their
ranking in Class I.
By that criterion, the appellant must take his place below
Respondents 2 and 3. [719 B-C}
3. (a) What governs the appellant is not the Government Memorandum
dated 13-4-1966, but the rules contained in the Punjab Agricultural Service
Class T, Rules, 1947. Rule 16 provides that seniority of men1bers of the service
shalJ be determined according to the date of confirmation in the service.
If
regard is had to Rules 10 to 16 of the Rules, the appellant must rank lower
in seniority than Respondents 2 and 3. [720 B-C]
•
(b) The circumstance, that the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 took
~-
charge of their respective posts in Class I service on divergent dates is purely
-
•
"
"
\ ,
•
I
T. s. SANDHU v. PUN.JAB STATE (Chandrachud, C.J.)
71 7
fortuitous and cannot affect their seniority. The appellant Vl'as junior to respondents 2 and 3 in Class I1I as well as in Class II service of the PEPSU State. He
\vas also junior to them in class 11 service of the Punjab Govt., after reorganisation of states.
Having been appointed to the higher post on th~ same date as
respondent 3 and on ad hoc basis, the appellant cannot be pennitted to take
advantage of a chancy cir

## Text

716
A
TEJINDER SINGH SANDHU
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
April 25, 1978
B
[Y. V. CHANDRACIIUD, C.J., D. A. DESAI AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.]
c
D
E
F
G
H
Seniority and Promotion, claim to-Whether a iunior in Cla.<is 11 service,
who by a chancy circumstance joined earlier in the Class I post and co1npleted
his probation in that post before his sPniors, clahn seniority in Class I post for
furlher promotion-Seniority in Class II has to prevail in ranking u•hen several
officers are appointed to Class I on an ad hoc basis and also con1p{eted their
probation and when per1nanent vacancies occur in that cadre of Class !-
Applicability of Govt. Memo No. 9448-Agr. 1(1)65/1583 dt. 13-4-66 and
•~-
Punjab-Agri. Service Rules, 1947, 10 to 16.
, ,........__..._
The appellant was junior to Respondents 2 and 3 in the Class ll Punjab
Agricultural Service.
On August 2, 1965 the appellant and Respondent No. 3
were pron1oted on an ad hoc basis as Deputy Directors of Agriculture a post
borne on the cadre of Class I service. The appellant took charge of the post
on August 4, 1965 being at headquarters, while respondents No. 3 joined on
18·8·65. Respondent No. 2 who was senior to Respondent No. 3 and the appellant could not be promoted earlier as he was on deputation with the Punjab
Agricultural University and he was promoted on 22-2·67 i.e. after his return
to parent department. The appellant, Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3
therefore completed their probation on 3-8-1967, 21-2-1969 and 1-3-1968 respectively.
On 14-10-71, the Government of
Punjab published a
tentative
seniority list in which the appellant was shown as junior to resoondents 2 and 3.
On that basis respondents 2 and 3 were promoted as Joint Directors of Agriculture \V.e.f. 10-7-1973 and 16-7-73 respectively.
As his representation for
considering his claim for seniority and promotion by virtue of his long continuous service in Class II post and also his earlier completion of probation that
the respondents failed, the appell<'].nt filed a writ petition in the High Court on
16-8-1973 contending that the promotion of respondents 2 and 3 to the post of
Joint Director was illegal being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution and
den1anding that in recognition of his superior claim arising by virtue of seniority,
he should be pron1oted and confirmed in the post of Joint Director. The High
Court disn1issed the Writ Petition but granted a certificate of fitness to appeal to
this Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The High Court was right in taking the view that respondents
2 and 3 were entitled to be appointed as Joint Directors of Agriculture
in
preference to the appellant on the basis of their seniority. [720 DJ
2. Since all of then1 were appointed to Class I on an ad hoc basis and
since they had all completed their probation in Class I post, when permanent
vacancies o.:cnrred in that cadre, their seniority in Class II has to prevail in their
ranking in Class I.
By that criterion, the appellant must take his place below
Respondents 2 and 3. [719 B-C}
3. (a) What governs the appellant is not the Government Memorandum
dated 13-4-1966, but the rules contained in the Punjab Agricultural Service
Class T, Rules, 1947. Rule 16 provides that seniority of men1bers of the service
shalJ be determined according to the date of confirmation in the service.
If
regard is had to Rules 10 to 16 of the Rules, the appellant must rank lower
in seniority than Respondents 2 and 3. [720 B-C]
•
(b) The circumstance, that the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 took
~-
charge of their respective posts in Class I service on divergent dates is purely
-
•
"
"
\ ,
•
I
T. s. SANDHU v. PUN.JAB STATE (Chandrachud, C.J.)
71 7
fortuitous and cannot affect their seniority. The appellant Vl'as junior to respondents 2 and 3 in Class I1I as well as in Class II service of the PEPSU State. He
\vas also junior to them in class 11 service of the Punjab Govt., after reorganisation of states.
Having been appointed to the higher post on th~ same date as
respondent 3 and on ad hoc basis, the appellant cannot be pennitted to take
advantage of a chancy circumstance that being geographically close to the headquarters, he was able to take charge of the post of promotion on the very day
on which he was appointed, an opportunity which a quirk of posting .denied
to respondent No. 3. In fact in Class I, there were only t\.'t'O vacancies in August
1965 a'Lld if respondent No. 2 \Vere· available for being
po5tcd
as
Deputy
Director, it is he and respondent 3 \Vho would have filled the two vacancies.
The appellant being junior to them would not have been appointed as a Deputy
Director even on an ad hoc basis. [718 H, 719 D-G]
.~___.,;--.
Crv1L APPELLATE JuR1smcnoN: Civil Appeal No. 713 of 1975 .
From the Judgment and Order dated 31-5-74 of the Punjab and
'
Haryana High Court in C. W. No. 2675/73.
Hurdev Singh and R. S. Sodhi for the Appellant. .
0. I'. Sharma for Respondeni No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.-The appellant, Tejinder Singh Sandhu, and
respondents 2 and 3 were serving initially as Class III Officers but were
recruited directly as Class II Officers in the erstwhile State of Patiala
and th~ East Punjab States' Union, ('Pepsu').
After the reorganisation of Punjab and Pepsu, they were absorbed in the Punjab Agricultural Service, Class II.
In the seniority list of Class II Officers,
respondent 2 was shown at serial No. 30, respondent 3 at serial No.
39 and the appellant at serial No. 40.
On August 2, 1965, appellant
and respondent 3 were promoted on an ad-hoc basis as Deputy Directo"s of Agriculture, a post borne on the cadre of Class I Service. The
appellant took charge of that post on August 4, 1965 while respondent 3 took charge fourteen days later on August 18, 1965.
The adhoc promotions were made for a period of three months or until s:ich
time as the appointments could be made on a regular basis.
Rfspondent 2 was working at the material time in the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
The Government of Punjab having
">"--<;_ taken a decision in October, 1966 to allow its officers who were working on deputation with the Ludhiana Agricultural University to re.join
tho State Service, respondent 2 returned to the parent Department on
October 28, 1966.
He was promoted as Deputy Director of Agriculture, Class I, on February 22, 1967 on the same basis as the appellant
and respondent 3.
The appellant completed his probation on August 3, 1967 while
respondents 2 and 3 completed theirs on
February 21, 1969 '.rn<l
March I, 1968, respectively.
On October 14, 1971, the Governmeut
of Puajab published a tentative seniority list of Class -I Officers in
which the appellant was shown as junior to respondents 2 and 3.
Acting on the basis of the seniority list, the State Government promoted
respondent 2 to the post of Joint Director of Agriculture on July 10,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 S.C.R.
1973 and respondent 3 on July 16, 1973.
The appellant had filed a
rerresentation on the publication of the seniority list complaining that
since he had officiated continuously in the Class I post for a longer
period than respondents 2 and 3 and had completed his probation
before they had completed theirs, he should have been treated ai senior
to the other two and was entitled to be promoted as Joint Director in
pre'.erence to them. It was implicit in the promotion of n~spondents
2 and 3 to the post of Joint Director that the appellant's representation
was rejected by the Government.
On August 16, 1973 the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana contending that the promotion of
respoudents 2 and 3 to the post of Joint Director was illegal being
violative of article 16 of the Constitution and Jcmanding that in recogniti011 of his superior claim arising by virtue of seniority he should
be promoted and confirmed in the post of Joint Director.
By its
judgment dated May 31, 1974, the High Court dismissed the Writ
Petition but granted to the appellant a certificate of fitness to appeal
to this Court under article 133(1) of the Constitution.
The 1:arrow question for decision is whether the appellant is entitled to be regarded as senior to respondents 2 and 3 by virtue of his
contin;.ious officiation in the Class I post and because he had completed
his probation in that post before respondents 2 and 3 completed
theirs.
Certain facts bearing on this qu~stion are undisputed.
Appellant and respondents 2 and 3 originally belonged to Class III Service
of the Pepsu State.
They were later appointed by direct recruitment
as Closs II Officers in the Agriculture Department of the State with
effect from September 24, 1956, July 13, 1956 and May I, 1956, respectively.
It is, therefore, clear and no! disputed that in the cadre of
Clas> II Officers in the Pepsu Agriculture Department, appellant was
junior to respondents 2 and 3.
After the merger of Pepsu with
Punjab they were all absorbed in Class II Service of the Punjab
Agriculture Department. Appellant and respondent 3 were later promoted to Class I Service of the Punjab Government on the same
dato. that is to say, on August 2, 1965.
On the date of promotion,
appellant happened to be working at Chandigarh itself and was therefore abk to take charge of his new post imll!ediately after the date of
his arpointment viz., August 4, 1965.
Respondent 31 on the other
hand, v.as working as an Assistant Horticulturist at Kulu and therefore, he could not take charge of his post nntil he was relieved of the
post which he was holding.
He was able to take
over as Deputy
Director at Hansi on August 18, 1965, which was 14 days after the
appf.llan~ had taken charge of his post.
Respondent 2 was promGted
as a Deputy Director in 1966 but, (hat was fer the reason that he was
working on deputation with the Ludhiana Agricultural University and
until the Government permitted its officers working on deputation with
the University to revert to the State Service, respondent 2, though
• eligihle for being appointed as a Deputy Director, could not be so
H
~ppoi:1tcd. Thus the .circumstance that the appellant and respondent<
2 and J took charge of their respective posts in Class I Service on
divergent dates is pnrely fortuitous and cannot affect their seniority.
w
,/ -
•
---.... ,
' -'
T. s. SANDHU v. PUNJAB STATE (Chandrachud, C.J.)
719
All the three were appointed as Class I Officers on a purely ad-hoc
basi~.. The p_ermanent vacancies in that cadre occurred in 1971 and it
is in reference to the State of affairs ·obtaining at that point of time that
the question of seniority of the three officers has to be consideredOn
the date on which permanent vacancies occurred in the Class l cadre,
the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 had all completed their probationary period satisfactorily.
They were, therefore, eligible and ::ier-
.•
haps e11titled to be confirmed in Class I posts.
But that confirmation
had to be made in the order in which they ranked in seniority in their
~ '
Class II posts.
We have no doubt that since all of them were appoint-
-.
ed to Class I on an ad hoc basis and since they had all completed their
.
probation in Class I posts when permanent vacancies occurred in that
•
cadre, their seniority in Class II has to prevail in their ranking in
C\ . ..___,., Class I. By that criterion, there can be no doubt that that the appel-
'
•
lan~ must take his place below respondents 2 and 3.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends
that scn10rity of officers promoted to Class I from the Class II cadre
must be determined according to the dates of their continuous officiation in Class I posts and according to the dates on which they comple:ed foeir probationary period. It is urged that by the application
of this dual test, the appellant would rank higher in seniority over
respondents 2 and 3.
By reason of the circumstances which we have
earlier mentioned, there is no
substance in this contention.
The
appellant was junior to respon_dents 2 and 3 in Class III as well as
in Class II Service of the Pepsu State.
He was also junior to them in
Class II Service of the Punjab Government, after reorganisation of the
States.
Having been appointed to the higher post on the same date
as respondent 3 and on an ad-hoc basis, the appellant cannot be permitted to take advantage of a chancy circumstance that being geographically close to the headquarters he was able to take charge of the
post oi promotion on the very date on which he was appointed, an
opportunity which a quirk of posting denied to respondent 3.
The
Jailer, being at Kulu, had to be relieved of his post there an<l the
proverbial red-tapism intervened to disahk him from taking charge of
his Class I post until fourteen days later.
In so far as respondent 2
is concerned, he had to await the decision of the Government that
those on deputation to the Ludhiana Agricultural University may return to their parent departments. It is not disputed that if in August
1965, respondent 2 was not working on deputation, he would have
been promoted along with the appellant and respondent 3 to Class I.
In fact it is important that in Class I, there were only two vacancies in
August 1965 and if respondent 2 were available for being posted as a
Deputy Director, it is he and respondent 3 who would have filled the
two vacancies.
The appellant being junior to them would not have
been appointed as a Deputy Director even on an ad-hoc basis.
Learned counsel for the appellant placed heavy reliance on the
State Government's instructions regarding fixation of seniority contained
in Government Memo No. 9448-Agr. 1(1)65/1583 dated April
13, 1966, in support of his argument that the appellant must rank
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[J 978] 3 S.C.R.
higher in seniority than respondents 2 and 3. The Memorandum has
no application because it refers to 'temporary officers' appointed to
the Punjab Agricultural Service, Class I and Class II. In case of
temporary officers promoted to Class I and Class II posts, seniority
may have to be determined under the particular Government Memoranduu1 with reference to the dates of continuous appointment iu the
respective cadres.
But the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 were
working in a permanent capacity when they were proinoted to Class
I. What governs the seniority of the appellant is not the Memorandum on which he relies but the rules contained in the Punjab Agricultural Service, Class I, Rules, 1947. If regard is had to rules 10 and
16 of the aforesaid Rules, there cannot be any doubt that the appellant
must rank lower in seniority than respondents 2 and 3. Rule 16 provides that seniority of members of the Service shall be determined
according to the date of confirmation in the Service. The exact dates
of confirmation of the officers concerned are not on the record but it
is clear that by reason of the circumstances adverted to before, appellant's confirmation has to be postponed to that of respondents 2 and 3.
\Ve are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court is right in
taking the view that respondents 2 and 3 were entitled to be appointed
as Joint Directors of Agriculture in preference to the appellant on the
basis of their seniority.
Accordingly we confirm the judgment of the
High Court and dismiss the appeal. The appellant shall pay the costs
of respandents 2 and 3 in one set. There will be no order as to costs
of respondent l, the State of Punjab, or of ~espond~nts 4 and 5.
S.H.
Appeal dismissed
•
. j
:
•