# > UNION OF INDIA ETC v. G.K. SANGAMESHWAR AND ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [1993] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 1
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1993-07-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 3215-20 of 1993
- **Bench:** S.C. Agrawal, B.P. Jeevan Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-etc-v-g-k-sangameshwar-and-ors-etc-11946
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Civil Services-Seniority Rules, 1954-Rule 3(3)(c) proviso-Object,
scope and constmction-'Appointed'-Meaning of
Civil Service.1~Se11iority Rules, 1954-Rule 3(3)(c) proviso-Officers
belonging to State Civil Service and non-State Civil Service-Seniority-Fi.xation-Principles.
A
B
c
Civil Services-Seniority Rules, 1954--Rule 3(3)(c) proviso read with
paragraphs 2 and 3 of Circular dated 6.6.1978-Year of allotment-Determination-Laying down p1inciples-Legality of-Application of piinciples in D
para 2 of Circular.
CA. Nos. 3215-20 of 1993
Respondent·'S' was selected for recruitment to the Indian Ad·
ministration Service (TAS) as a non-State Civil Service Gazetted Officer E
1985. Before the said selection 'S' was considered for appointment to the
IAS along with 'N' but was not selected. 'N' was however selected and,
assigned the year 1981 as the year of allotment. Applying the circular dated
June 6, 1978, the Government of India decided that as 'S' was not selected .
at the time when 'N' was selected, he could not be assigned an year of
allotment earlier than that assigned to 'N'.Since 'N' was assigned the year F
1981 as the year of allotment 'S' was also assigned the year 1981 as the year
of allotment.
'S' made a representation to the Government of India wherein he
stated that he was working on the post of Joint Registrar, Cooperative G
Societies, which post was equivalent to a senior scale post of the Service,
since September 3, 1973 and moreover a directly recruited officer who was
appointed to IAS on July 3, 1969 was appointed to the senior scale on
December 6, 1972, 'S' claimed that he should be assigned the year 1969 as
the year of allotment. \'ide communication dated October 25, 1988, the said
representation of 'S' was rejected. The Central Administrative Tribunal H
1
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
quashed the letter dated October 25, 1988 of the Government of India and
directed the Union of India and the State of Karnataka to fix the seniority
of 'S' in accordance with clause (c) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Seniority
Rules.
·
Against the said order of the Tribunal, the Union of India and the
B State of Karnataka filed appeals before this Court.
c
Respondent -'B' was selected for recruitment to the !AS in 1985 as a
non-State Civil Service Officer. In accordance with the proviso to clause (c)
of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation
of Seniority) Rules, 1954, he was assigned the year 19i 7 as the year of
allotment on the ground that a State Civil Service Officer of the State of
karnataka, who had longer length of service, had been assigned the year
1977 as the year of allotment. 'B' submitted a representation to the Government of India wherein he stated that since he had been working on the post
of Joint Director of Industries and Commerce since May 1978, which post
D was equivalent to a senior scale post in the service, he was entitled to be
assigned the year 1974 as the year of allotment.
By order dated 30.9.1988, the Government of India re.iected 'B's'
representation.
E
The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the orders of the
F
Government of India regarding assignment of the year of allotment and
directed the Union oflndia and the State of Karnataka to consider his case
for refixation of his seniority with reference to the year 1974.
The Union of India filed a review application before the Tribunal,
which was dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence these appeals by the Union of
"1dia and the State of Karnataka in this Court.
Respondent 'C' a non-State Civil Service Officer was considered in
1985 for selection for recruitment to the !AS along with 'S' and 'B'. 'C' was
G not selected. He was selected subsequently in 1988. In accordance with the
Circular dated June 6, 1978, he was assigned the year 1981 as the year of
allotment because 'S', who was selected in 1985 had the assigned the year
1981 as the year of allotment.
He submitted a representation to the Government of Indi

## Text

_Characters 0–39,962 of 65,389. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39962 for what follows._

I
)
t
;
>
UNION OF INDIA ETC.
v.
G.K. SANGAMESHWAR AND ORS. ETC.
JULY 13, 1993
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.]
Civil Services-Seniority Rules, 1954-Rule 3(3)(c) proviso-Object,
scope and constmction-'Appointed'-Meaning of
Civil Service.1~Se11iority Rules, 1954-Rule 3(3)(c) proviso-Officers
belonging to State Civil Service and non-State Civil Service-Seniority-Fi.xation-Principles.
A
B
c
Civil Services-Seniority Rules, 1954--Rule 3(3)(c) proviso read with
paragraphs 2 and 3 of Circular dated 6.6.1978-Year of allotment-Determination-Laying down p1inciples-Legality of-Application of piinciples in D
para 2 of Circular.
CA. Nos. 3215-20 of 1993
Respondent·'S' was selected for recruitment to the Indian Ad·
ministration Service (TAS) as a non-State Civil Service Gazetted Officer E
1985. Before the said selection 'S' was considered for appointment to the
IAS along with 'N' but was not selected. 'N' was however selected and,
assigned the year 1981 as the year of allotment. Applying the circular dated
June 6, 1978, the Government of India decided that as 'S' was not selected .
at the time when 'N' was selected, he could not be assigned an year of
allotment earlier than that assigned to 'N'.Since 'N' was assigned the year F
1981 as the year of allotment 'S' was also assigned the year 1981 as the year
of allotment.
'S' made a representation to the Government of India wherein he
stated that he was working on the post of Joint Registrar, Cooperative G
Societies, which post was equivalent to a senior scale post of the Service,
since September 3, 1973 and moreover a directly recruited officer who was
appointed to IAS on July 3, 1969 was appointed to the senior scale on
December 6, 1972, 'S' claimed that he should be assigned the year 1969 as
the year of allotment. \'ide communication dated October 25, 1988, the said
representation of 'S' was rejected. The Central Administrative Tribunal H
1
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
quashed the letter dated October 25, 1988 of the Government of India and
directed the Union of India and the State of Karnataka to fix the seniority
of 'S' in accordance with clause (c) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Seniority
Rules.
·
Against the said order of the Tribunal, the Union of India and the
B State of Karnataka filed appeals before this Court.
c
Respondent -'B' was selected for recruitment to the !AS in 1985 as a
non-State Civil Service Officer. In accordance with the proviso to clause (c)
of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation
of Seniority) Rules, 1954, he was assigned the year 19i 7 as the year of
allotment on the ground that a State Civil Service Officer of the State of
karnataka, who had longer length of service, had been assigned the year
1977 as the year of allotment. 'B' submitted a representation to the Government of India wherein he stated that since he had been working on the post
of Joint Director of Industries and Commerce since May 1978, which post
D was equivalent to a senior scale post in the service, he was entitled to be
assigned the year 1974 as the year of allotment.
By order dated 30.9.1988, the Government of India re.iected 'B's'
representation.
E
The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the orders of the
F
Government of India regarding assignment of the year of allotment and
directed the Union oflndia and the State of Karnataka to consider his case
for refixation of his seniority with reference to the year 1974.
The Union of India filed a review application before the Tribunal,
which was dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence these appeals by the Union of
"1dia and the State of Karnataka in this Court.
Respondent 'C' a non-State Civil Service Officer was considered in
1985 for selection for recruitment to the !AS along with 'S' and 'B'. 'C' was
G not selected. He was selected subsequently in 1988. In accordance with the
Circular dated June 6, 1978, he was assigned the year 1981 as the year of
allotment because 'S', who was selected in 1985 had the assigned the year
1981 as the year of allotment.
He submitted a representation to the Government of India wherein
H he submitted that he should be assigned the year 1977 as the year of
\
'
f
J
U.0.1. v. G.K.SANGAMESHWAR
3
allotment.
The said representation was rejected by the Government of India
vide order dated September 4, 1990.
A
The Tribunal quashed the orders
of the Government of India
regarding assignment of the year of allotment and directed the Union of B
India and the State of Karnataka to reconsider his case regarding the
year of allotment in accordance with lav.· and in the light of the principles
indicated by the Tribunal in its earlier case - G.K. Sangameshwar v. Union
of India, Application No. 865 of 1989 disposed of on 12.7.1991.
The Union of India and the State of Karnataka State filed appeals
against the order of the Tribunal in this Court.
WP. (C) No. 97! of 1992
c
The petitioner was appointed on the gazetted post of Labour Officer
in the State of Tamil Nadu on 3.6.1962. He was promoted to the posts of D
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Deputy Labour Commissioner and
Labour Commissioner. He was sponsored by the State Government for
appointment to the !AS as a non-State Civil Service Officer in the years
1975, 1977, 1980, 1982, 1983, and 1984; but he was not selected. In 1985
again he was sponsored by the State Government and was selected for E
appointment to the !AS. Applying the circular dated June 6, 1978 the
petitioner was assigned the year 1979 as the year of allotment.
The petitioner snbmitted representation to the Government of India
wherein he claimed that he should be assigned the year 1966 as the year of
allotment in view of the various posts held by him since the year 1972. The F
Government of India rejected that said representation. Against the said
order the petitioner moved the Central Administrative Tribunal. The
Tribunal directed the Union of India and the State of Tamil Na du to fix the
seniority of the petitioner in accordance with Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority
Rules of 1954. On appeal by the Union of India the said order of the G
Tribunal was set aside by this Court and the Government of India was
directed to apply its mind to the import and significance of the relevant
rules and express its views on the merits of the case without regard to what
the Tribunal had stated. The Government of India considered the matter
and by the letter dated January 22, 1992, the petitioner was informed that
the petitioner's year of allotment had been correctly fixed as 1979 under H
4
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. l S.C.R.
A Rule 3(3)(a) of the Seniority Rules, 1954.
The Writ Petition was filed to challenge the decision of the Government of India contained in the letter dated 22.1.1992.
Respondent 'B' contended that the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the
B Seniority Rules, 1954 should be so construed that it did not result in
injustice in the matter of assignment of the year of allotment and that it
should be read down to be applicable only when a State Civil Service
Officer and a non-State Civil Service Officer were considered by the
Selection Committee for the appointment to the Service in the same year;
C that if the length of service of the State Civil Officer wrs more than the
length of continuous service of the non-State Civil Service Officer, it would
be just and proper to assign the year of allotment to the non-State Civil
Servi.ce Officer in accordance with the proviso but where the State Civil
Serviice Officer was considered for appointment to the Service in an year
D
E
F
different from the year in which the non-State Civil Service Officer was so
considered, there was no justification for applying the proviso.
Respondents 'S' and 'C' and the Writ petitioner, challenging the
validity of the Circular dated January 6, 1978 on the ground that it ran
counter to Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules and submitted that by the
said Circular a general formula was laid down for determining the year of
allotment of non-State Civil Service Officer and it cuts down the discrehoil
that is required to be exercised by this respondent after taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances in respect of each officer.
Allowing the appeals and dismissing the writ petition, this Court
HELD: I.OJ. The proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules, 1954
prescribes that an officer who is appointed to the Service by selection in
accordance with sub-rule(2) of Rule 8 shall not be assigned an year earlier
than the year of allotment of an otlicer appointed in accordance with
G sub-rule(!) of Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules whose length of service in
the State Ch·il Sen-ice is more than the length cf continuous service of the
former in connection with the affairs of the State. [15-F]
1.02. The use of the word "appointed" indicates that the State Civil
Service Officer must have been appointed to the Sen-ice at the time when
H the non-State Civil Service Officer is appointed to the Service. This would
'
"
' , ;
..Ji_~ -
U.0.1. v. G.K.SANGAMESHWAR
5
)
exclude a State Civil Service Officer who is appointed to the Service after A
the appointment of the non-State Civil Service Officer to the Service, but
would include a State Civil Service Officer who is appointed to the service
in the same year in which the non-State Civil Service Officer is appointed
or is appointed in an earlier year. [15-G-H]
1.03. The intent of the proviso is to make the inter se seniority of a B
State Civil Service Officer and a non-State Civil Service Officer who have
been appointed of the Service dependent on their respective length of
service. A non-State Civil Service Officer cannot claim seniority over the .
State Civil Service Officer whose length of service in the State Civil Service
is more than the length of continuous service of the non· State Civil Service C
officer. (16-A, BJ
1.04. There is nothing unjust or unreasonable in this provJSion
whereby the seniority of two officers (one belonging to the State Civil
Service and the other a non-State Civil Service Officer) who have been
found suitable for appointment to the Service is so fixed that a non-State D
Civil Service Officer does not become senior to a State Civil Service Officer
whose length of Service in the State Civil Service is more than the length
of continuous senice in connection with the affairs of the State of the
non-State Civil Service Officer. (16-B-C]
1.05. Since this Court has upheld the validity of Rule 3(3)(c) of the E
Seniority Rules in its entirety (including the proviso), the order passed by
;
the Tribunal that the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) is invalid and must be ignored
for a~signing the year of allotment cannot be upheld. [15-A]
K.K. Baxi v. Union of India, (1987) 5 SLR 9, distin~uished.
Union of India v. S.N. Dubey, C.A. Nos. 1755 and 1784 of 1991,
decided on 8.4.1991, relied on.
),
K. V. Nambiar v. Union of India & Ors., (1990) 2 SW 370 and Shripati
F
Narain Dubey v. Union of India & Ors., O.A.No. 424 of 1988, over-ruled.
G
2.01. In Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules, a discretion has been
conferred on the Central Government to determine the year of allotment
to be assigned to an officer who is appointed by selection in accordance
with sub-rule (2) of.Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules and while making the
said determination, the Central Government has to consider the recomH
6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
mendation of the State Government concerned and bas also to consult the
Union Public Service Commission. But this does not preclude the Central
Government from laying down the principles to be followed in the matter
of exercise of the discretion in this regard. [17-E, Fl
B
2.02. Such principles can be evolved keeping in view the fact that a
number of officers are appointed to the Service by selection in accordance
with sub-rule(2) of Rule 8 of the Recrui.tment Rules and there are certain
common features which may afford a rational basis for determination of
the year of allotment for the purpose of assigning seniority. Such principles would have the advantage of excluding arbitrariness in the exercise
C of the discretion and would ensure fairness in such determination. [17-G]
2.03. The provision contained in Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules
cannot be construed as excluding the laying down of such principles for
the exercise of discretion. [17-G]
D
2.04. The Circular dated June 6, 1978 which lays down such principles is not violative of the provision of Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority rules.
K Ramachandra v. Union of India, Application No. 536 of 1986
decided on 30.4.1986; T.M. Thomas v. Secretary, Department of Personnel &
Training, 1987, Lal Ind. Cases 1541, S.N. Choudhary .v. Union India, (1989)
E 6 SLR 519 and S. Rajasubramaniam v; Government of India, (1990) 13 ATC
147, over-ruled.
S. G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, (1967] 2 SCR 703, relied on.
3.01. Under Regnlation 3 of the IAS (Appointment by selection)
F
Regulation, 1956, the suitability of the non-State Civil Service Officers
whose names have been proposed by the State Government for appointment to the IAS is considered by the Selection Committee as well as by
the Union Public Service Commission and, it cannot be said that there is
no assessment of comparative merit of the non-State Civil Service Officers
G. in the process or selection for appointment to the IAS. [22-G, HJ
3.02. The fact that the non-State Civil Service Officers whose names
are proposed by the State Government come from different sources and
departments does not militate against assessment of their comparative
merit by the Selection Committee and the Union Public Service CommisH sion and, therefore, there is no reason why the principle underlying para'
.,.
. ·•
"
' ,.
'·
U.O.I. v. G.K. SANGAMESHWAR [AGRAWAL,J.)
7
}
graph 2 of the circular dated June 6, 1978 should not apply to such A
officers. [23-A)
•
-'
3.3. The reasonableness of the provision contained in paragraph 2 of
the circular dated June 6, 1978 cannot be considered is isolation by confining oneself to its effect on a non-State Civil Service Officer who was not
selected in the earlier selection hut was selected subsequently. The matter B
bas to be examined in the broader prospective keeping in view the interests
of the non-State Civil Service Officer who was selected in the earlier selection. It would be unreasonable to place the non-State Civil Service Officer
who was not selected above the non-State Civil Service Officer who was
selected at the same selection. The principles underlying paragraph 2 of the C
circular dated June 6, 1978 cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable
merely because of its effect on a particular officer. [23-H, 24-A, B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3215-20
of 1993.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.7.1991, 14.8.1992 and D
24.7.1991 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application
Nos. 865/89, 608/91 and 636/89.
AND
Writ Petition (C) No. 971 of 1992.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
V.R. Reddy, Addi. Solicitor General, Y.P. Mahajan and C.V. Subba
Rao for the Appellant/Petitioner.
P. Chidambaram, N.D.B. Ruju, G. Prabhakar, M. Veerappa and R.
Sasiprabhu for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
F
S.C. AGRAWAL, J. There is some delay in filing of the special leave G
petitions directed against the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated July 24, 1991 (in O.A. 636
of 1989) and October 31, 1991 (in R.A. 72 of 1991). The said delay is
condoned. Leave is granted in all the special leave petitions.
The appeals relate to the frxation of seniority in the Indian AdH
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP.1 S.C.R.
A ministrative Service (hereinafter referred to as 'the Service' of three officers, namely, S/Shri G.K. Sangameshwar, K.A. Belliappa and C. Chikkanna, who were non-State Civil Service Officers in the State of Karnataka and
were appointed in the Service by selection. The writ petition is by Raja
Subramanian a non-State Service Officer in the State of Tamilnadu who
B
c
also has been appointed to the Se1 vice by selection and has a grievance
about the fixation of his seniority in the Service.
The recruitment to the Service is governed by the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Recruitment Rules'). Rule 4 prescribes the following methods of recruitment to the Service : (1) by a competitive examination; (2) by selection of
persons from among the Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short
Service Commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces of the Union; (3) by
promotion of substantive member of a State Civil Service; and ( 4) by
selection, in special cases from among persons, who hold in a substantive
capacity gazetted posts in connection with the affairs of a State and who
D
are not members of a State Civil Service.
E
F
G
Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules deals with the recruitment by
promotion or selection. In sub-Rule (1) provision is made for recruitment
by promotion of a substantive member of a State Civil Service and in
sub-r.(2), the following provision has been made with regard to the recruitment by selection from amongst non- State Civil Service Officers :
"8(2) The Central Government may, in special circumstances
and 9n the recommendation of the State Government concerned
and in consultation with the Commission and in accordance with
such regulations as the Central Government may, after consultation with the State Governments and the Commission, from time
to time, make, recruit to the Service any person of outstanding
ability and merit serving in FOnnection with the affairs of the State
who is not a member of the State Civil Service or that State but
who holds a gazetted post in a substantive capacity."
The seniority of an officer appointed to the Service is governed by
the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Seniority Rules'). Such seniority depends
on the year of allotment and Rule 3 makes provisions for assignment- of
H year of allotment to the officer. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 deals with assign-
.>
•
j
U.0.1. v. G.K.SANGAMESHWAR[AGRAWAL,J.)
9
ment of year of allotment to an officer appointed to the Service after the A
commencement of the Seniority Rules. Under Clause (a) of sub-rule (3)
the year of allotment of an officer who is appointed to the Service on the
results of a competitive examination is the year following the year in which
such examination was held. In respect of an officer who is appointed to the
Service by promotion in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the B
Recruitment Rules, clause (b) of sub-rule (3) prescribes that the year of
allotment of such officer shall be the year of allotment of the junior-most
among the officers recruited to the Service in accordance with Rule 7 of
those rules who officiated continuously in a senior post from a date earlier
than the date of commencement. of such officiation by the former. With · C
regard to an officer who is appointed to the Service by selection in
accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, the
. following provision has been made in clause ( c) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3:
"3(3)(c) - where the officer is appointed to the Service by
selection in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Recruit- D
ment Rules, such year as may be determined ad hoc by the Central
Govermnent on the recommendation of the State Govermnent
concerned and in consultation with the Commission.
Provided that· he shall not be allotted a year earlier than the
year of allotment of an officer appointed to the Service in accordE
ance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, whose
length of service in the State Civil Service is more than the length
-of continuous service of the former in connection with the affairs
of the State."
The Seniority Rule were replaced by the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987. Rule 3(3)(iii) of the said rules
till February 3, 1989 was substantially on the same lines as Rule 3(3)(c) of
the Seniority Rules of 1954.
F
The Government of India has issued a circular/letter dated June 6, G
1978, with regard to fixation of seniority under Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority
Rules of non-State Civil Service Officers recruited to the Service by selection. The said letter reads as under -
"I am directed to say that m this Department's letter H
A
B
c
D
E
F
10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 1 S.CR.
No.14014/83/76-AlS(I) dated the 15th February, 1977 on the above
mentioned subject it is laid down that the seniority of a non- State
Civil Service officer appointed to !AS by selection shall be determined in consultation with UPSC on the analogy of rule 3(3)(b)
of the !AS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 subject to the
proviso to rule 3(3)(c) of the said rules.
2. The question whether there shpuld be a depression of year of
allotment of a non-State Civil Service Officer on account of the
fact that he had been rejected by the Selection Committee on an
earlier occasion, has been examined in consultation with the UPSC.
It has been decided that a non-State Civil Service Officer who was
considered unsuitable by the Selection Committee for appointment
to the !AS on an earlier occasion should not get a year of allotment
higher than the year of allotment assigned to the non-State Civil
Service Officer who was also considered along with the former in
earlier year but was found suitable by the Selection Committee and
was, therefore, appointed to the !AS earlier than him. Such an
officer may, however, get the same year of allotment but he .should
be placed below the non-State Civil Service Officer allotted the
same year of allotment who was selected and appointed to the !AS
in an earlier year in preference to the non-State Civil Service
Officer appointed to !AS later ..
3. It has also been decided in consultation with the UPSC that as
between two or more non-State Civil Service Officers selected at
the same time, the officer who was placed high in order of merit
would be senior to the Officers placed lower in order of merit."
By circular dated February 15, 1985, paragraph 3 of circular dated
June 6, 1978 was deleted.
We will first take up the appeals which relate to S/Shri G .K. SanG gameshwar, KA. Belliappa and C. Chikkanna.
Shri G.K. Sangameshwer was employed in the Department of
Cooperatives of the Government of Karnataka-:-He was holding the post of
Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies from September 3, 1973 and the post
of Additional Registrar from April 28, 1980. He was selected for recruitH ment to the Service as a non-State (Civil) Service Gazetted officer in the
\
''
U.0.1. v. G.K.SANGAMESHWAR[AGRAWAL,J.]
11
year 1985 and was appointed to tho Service on April 8, 1986. It appears A
that before the said selection, he was considered for appointment to the
Service along with one Shri P.G. Naik and he was not selected while Shri
Naik was selected. Shri Naik was assigned the year 1981 as the year of
allotment. By letter dated March 25, 1988, Shri Sangameshwar was informed by the Government of India that since he was not selected at the B
. time when Shri Naik was so selected, he could not be assigned an year of
allotment earlier than that assigned to Shri P.G. Naik and he was also
assigned the year 1981 as the year of allotment. The case of Shri Sangarneshwar is that he had been working on the post of Joint Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, (which post is equivalent to a senior scale post of c
the Service) since Septembed, 1973 and that since Shri S. Swathantra Rao
who has been directly recruited to the Service on July 3, 1969 was appointed to the Senior scale on December 19, 1972, he should be assigned
the year 1969 as the year of allotment. It is also his case that Shri K.A.
Belliappa, another non-State Civil Service Officer, who was selected along
with him in the year 1985 had been assigned the year 1977 as the year of D
allotment and since Shri K.A. Belliappa was placed below him in the select
list, he should not be assigned the year of allotment lower than that _of Shri
Belliappa and as such in any event he should be assigned the year 1977 as
the year of allotment. The representation submitted by Shri Sangarneshwar
v
in this regard was rejected by order contained.in the communication dated E
October 25, 1988. Shri Sangarneshwar filed an application (Application no.
865 of 1989) before the Tribunal for quashing the said order dated October
25, 1988 which was allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated July 12, 1991.
The Tribunal quashed the order contained in the letter dated October 25,
1988 of the Government of India assigning the year 1981 as the year of F
allotment to Shri Sangarneshwar and the Union oflndia as well as the State
of Karnataka were directed to fix the seniority of Shri Sangarneshwar in
accordance with clause (c) of sub-rule (3) of the Seniority Rules. The
Union of India as well as the State of Karnataka have filed appeals against
the said order of the Tribunal.
G
,
Shri K.A. Belliappa was employed in the Department of Industries
and Commerce of the Government of Karnataka. He was promoted as
Joint Director of Industries and Commerce in May 1978: He was selected
for recruitment to the Service in the year .1985 and was appointed to the
H
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A Service on June 10, 1986. By order dated Mar.ch 25, 1988, he was assigned
the year 1977 as the year of allotment on the ground that one Shri M.G.
Kadali, a State Civil Service Officer of the State of Karnataka, who had a
'-
longer length of service was assigned the year 1977 as the year of allotment
in the Service. The case of Shri Belliappa is that since he had been working
B
on the post of Joint Director of Industries and Commerce since may 1978,
which post was equivalent to a senior scale post in the Service, he was
1entitled to be assigned the year 1974 as the year of allotment. The representation submitted by Shri Belliappa was, however, rejected by the
Government of India on September 30, 1988. Shri Belliappa filed an
C application (Application No. 636 of 1989) before the Tribunal which was
allowed by the Tribunal by order dated July 24, 1991 and the orders dated
March 25, 1988 and September 30, 1988 were quashed and the Union of
India and the State of Karnataka were directed to take up the case of Shri
Belliappa for refixation of his seniority with reference to the year 1974. A
review application (Review Application No. 72 of 1991) was filed by the
D Union of India against the said order of the Tribunal but the same was
dismissed by the Tribunal by its order dated October 31, 1991. The Union
of India has filed the appeal against both the orders of the Tribunal dated
July 24, 1991 and October 31, 1991 whereas the State of Karnataka had
filed the appeal against the order dated July 24, 1991.
E
Shri C. Chikkanna was employed in the Department of Industries
and Commerce of the Government of Karnataka. He was promoted as
Joint Director of Industries and Commerce by order dated May 12, 1978.
He was considered for selection for recruitment to the Service along with
F
Shri G .K. Sangarneshwar and Shri K.A. Belliappa in the year 1985 but he
was not selected. He was selected subsequently and was appointed to the
Service on September 28, 1988 and by order dated March 2, 1990, he was
assigned the year 1981 as the year of allotment. He, however, claims that
he should have been assigned the year' 1977 as the year of allotment. The
representation submitted by him was rejected by the Government of India
G on September 4, 1990. He moved an application (Application no. 608 of
1991) before the Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal by its order
dated August 14, 1992 whereby the Tribunal has quashed the orders dated
March 2, 1990 and September 4, 1990 and has directed the Union of India
as well as the State of Karnataka to reconsider his case regarding the year
H of allotment in accordance with law and in the light of the principles
U.0.I. V. G.K.SANGAMESHWAR[AGRAWAL,J.]
13
indicated by the Tribunal in Sangameshwar's case. The Union of India as A
well as the State of Karnataka have filed appeals against the said order of
the Tribunal
At .the outset it may be stated that the case of Shri KA. Belliappa
differs from that of Shri G.K. Sangameshwar and Shri C. Cbikkanna
inasmuch as the year of allotment of Shri Belliappa has been assigned on
the basis of proviso to clause (c) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Seniority
Rules while the year of allotment of Shri G.K. Sangameshwar and Shri C.
Chikkanna have been assigned on the basis of the circular dated June 6,
1978. We will first take up the case of Shri Belliappa.
As noticed earlier, Shri Belliappa has been assigned the year 1981 as
the year of allotment for the reason that one Shri M.G. Kadali, a State Civil
Service Officer, whose length of service in the State Civil Service was more
than the length of continuous service of Shri Belliappa, had been assigned
B
c
the year 1981 as the year of allotment and in view of the proviso to Rule
3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules Shri Belliappa could not be assigned an year D
of allotment earlier than the year of allotment assigned to Shri Kadali. The
Tribunal has allowed the application of Shri Belliappa having regard to its
earlier decisions including the decisions in KV. Nambiar v. Union of India
& Ors., (1990) 2 SLJ 370 and Shripati Narain Dubey v. Union of India &
Ors., O.A. No. 424 of 1988, wherein the Tribunal had struck down Rule
E
3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules. The said decisions of the Tribunal Striking
down Rule 3(3)(c) were reversed by this Court in Union of India v. Shri
K. V. Nambiar & Ors., and Shri S.N. Dubey, Civil Appeals Nos. 1755 and ·
1784 and 1991 decided on the April 8, 1991 wherein this Court has
observed -
'We are inclined to take the view that the Central Administrative
Tribunal should not have struck down Rule 3(3)(c) of the Indian
Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954,
merely on the basis that the two instances which had come before
F
it for consideration were not being adequately answered under the G
Rules. These Rules have been in force for almost 36 years and the
challenge that has now come for consideration was the rare instance where under the Rules, it became difficult to deal with the
matter. Union of India has in its affidavit indicated that exceptional
situations as arising in the case of the two respondents should be
answered under the residual Rules and if not covered under the H
A
B
c
14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
Rules, under the administrative powers and for that purpose the
Rules should not have been struck down. Counsel for Union of
India has told us during the course of hearing of the appeals that
the relief granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal so far as
the two officers are concerned may be sustained in terms of the
directions of the Tribunal but the further direction that the Rule
referred to above is struck down may be set aside. Counsel for the
respondents have no objection to the submission of the appellant
being accepted.
We are inclined to accept the submission and while vacating the
decision of the Tribunal on the question of the vires of the Rules,
we sustain the reliefs granted by the Tribunal in terms. Both the
appeals are partly allowed."
In the review petition that was filed by the Union of India against
the order of the Tribunal dated July 24, 1991 reliance was placed on the
D said decision of this Court. The said review petition was, however, dismissed by the Tribunal on the view that tbe relief granted by the Tribunal
so far as Shri K.V. Nambiar and Shri S.N. Dubey were concerned, was
sustained by this Court in terms of the direction of the Tribunal. The
Tribunal was further of the view lhat its decisions in K. V. Nambiar v. Union
E of India and Shripati Narain Dubey v. Union of India & Ors., showed that
there was a conflict between the main provision of Rule 3(3)(c) of the
Seniority Rules and the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) and that the proviso was
to be ignored and that the validity of the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) had not
been upheld by this Court and that on the other hand the relief that was
granted by the Tribunal ignoring the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) had been
p
upheld by this Court.
We are unable to appreciate this approach of the Tribunal in holding
that this Court has upheld the view of the Tribunal that the proviso to Rule
3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules is in conflict with the main provision of Rule
3(3)(c) of the Seniority and must be ignored. The order passed by this
G
Court on April 8, 1991 in Union of India v. K. V. Nambiar & Others (supra)
clearly upholds the validity of Rule 3(3)(c) in its entirety. Merely because
the Court has sustained the relief that was granted by the Tribunal to the
two officers on the basis of the statement made by the counsel for the
Union of India does not mean that this Court has upheld the view of the
H Tribunal with regard to the validity of the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c). Since
U.0.1. V. G.K.SANGAMESHWAR[AGRAWAL,J.)
15
this Court has upheld the validity of Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules in A
its entirety (including the proviso), the order passed by the Tribunal that
the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) is invalid and must be ignored for assigning the
year of allotment cannot be upheld.
Shri P. Chidambaram, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Shri B
K.A. Belliappa, has, however, urged that the proviso should be so construed that it does not result in injustice in the matter of assignment of the
year of allotment and that it must be read down to be applicable only when
a State Civil Service Officer and a non-State Civil Service Officer are
considered by the Selection Committee for appointment to the Service in
the same year. In such a case, if the length of the service of the State Civil C
Service Officer is more than the length of continuous service of the
non-State Civil Service Officer, it would be just and proper to assign the
year of allotment to the non-State Civil Service Officer in accordance with
the proviso. But where the State Civil Service Officer is considered for
appointment to the Service in an year different from the year in which the D
non-State Civil Service Officer is so considered, there is no justification for
applying the proviso. In this context, Shri Chidamabararn has urged that if
the proviso is not so construed, the year of allotment of a non-State Civil
Service officer would be dependent on the year of allotment of a State Civil
Service Officer having a longer length of service though appointed much
after the appointment of the non-State Civil Service Officer. In support of E
this submission, Shri Chidarnbararn has placed reliance on the decision of
the Gujarat High Court in KK Baxi v. Union of India, (1987) 5 Service
Law Reporter 9. We find no substance in this contention. The proviso to
Rule 3(3)(c) prescribes that an officer who is appointed to the Service by
selection in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 shall not be assigned F
an year earlier than the year of allotment of an officer appointed in
accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules whose
length of service in the State Civil Service is more than the length of
continuous service of the former in connection with the affairs of the State.
The use of the word "appointed" indicates that the State Civil Service
officer must have been appointed to the Service at the time when the G
non-State Civil Service officer is appointed to the Service. This would
exciude a State Civil Service officer who is appointed to the Service after
the appointment of the non-State Civil Services officer to the Service, but
would include a State Civil Service officer who is appointed to the service
in the same year in which the non-State Civil Service officer is appointed H
16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A or is appointed in an earlier year. The intent of the proviso is to make the
inter se seniority of a State Civil Service officer and a non-State Civil Service
officer who have been appointed to the Service dependent on their respective length of service. A non-State Civil Service officer cannot claim
seniority over the State Civil Service officer whose length of service in the
B State Civil Service is more than the length of continuous service of the
non-State Civil Service officer. We find nothing unjust or unreasonable in
this provision whereby the seniority of two officers (one belonging to the
State Civil Service and the other a non-State Civil Service officer) who have
been found suitable for appointment to the Service is so fixed that a nonSate Civil Service officer does not become senior to a State Civil Service
C
officer whose length of service in the State Civil Service is more than the
length of continuous service in connection with the affa::' of the State of
the non-State Civil Service officer.
The decision of the Gujarat High Court in K.K. Baxi v. Union of
D
India, (supra) has no application. In that case, the High Court has construed para 3 of the circular dated June 6, 1978 and has held that it only
applies to cases where the officers are assigned the same year of allotment.
The said decision has no bearing on the construction of the proviso to Rule
3(3)(c).
E
For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the year of
F
allotment was rightly assigned to Shri K.A. Belliappa in accordance with
the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority-Rules. We are unable to uphold
the orders passed by the Tribunal quashing the orders passed by the
Government of India in this regard.
We would now deal with the cases of Shri G .K. Sangarneshwar and
Shri C. Chikkanna. The years of allotment in these officers have been
assigned in accordance with the circular dated June 6, 1978. Shri Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Shri Chikkanna and Shri S.S.
Javali, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Shri Sangarneshwar, have
G challenged the validity of circular dated June 6, 1978 on the ground that it
runs counter to Rule 3(3)( c) of the Seniorfiy Rules which requires that the
year of allotment of an officer who is appointed to the Service by Selection
in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules shall
be determined ad hoc by the Central Government on the recommendation
H of the State Government on the and in consultation with the Commission.
U.0.1. v. G.K. SANGAMESHWAR [AGRAWAL,J.J
17
).
The submission is that having regard to the fact that the non-State Civil A
Service officers belong to different categories there can be no uniform rule
for assigning the year of allotment to such officers and the case of each
officer has to be considered on its own merit on the basis of the recommendation of the State Government concerned and in consultation with
the Commission. It is urged that circular dated June 6, 1978 whereby a B
general formula has been laid down for determining the year of allotment
of non-State Civil Service Officer cuts down the discretion that is required
to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances
in respect of each officer. In support of this submission, reliance has been
placed on the observations of the Tribunal in, K Ramachandran v. Union
of India, (Application no. 536 of 1986 decided on April 30, 1986) which c
have been followed by the Tribunal in its subsequent decisions in T.M.
Thomas v. Secretary, Department of personnel & Training, 1987, Labour &
Industries Cases, 1541; S.N Choudhury v. Union of India, 1989 (6) SLR
519; S. Rajasubramian v. Government of India, 1990 (13) Administrative
Tribunal Cases, 147 as well as the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases D
under appeal.
We are unable to accept the said contention.