# ), VASANT KUMAR JAISWAL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SEPTEMBER 8, 1987

- **Citation:** [1988] 1 S.C.R. 73
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1987-09-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Petition No. 181 of 1983
- **Bench:** Sabyasachi Mukharji, G.L. Oza
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vasant-kumar-jaiswal-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-september-8-1987-9762
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

B
Service matter-Seniority on the basis of length of serviceDetermination of-In the absence of any statutory rule or executive
memorandum or order relating to determination of seniority.
~
This was an appeal against the judgment and order of the High c
Court of Madhya Pradesh, which in accordance with the well-settled
principle laid down by this Court as also the High Court, held .that in
~
the absence of any statutory rule or executive memorandum or order
laying down the rule for determination of seniority in a gra4e, the
normal rule applicable would be to determine the seniority on the basis
of length of service.
D
Disposing of the Appeal, the Court,
HELD: Counsel for the appellant contended that there were two
rules in the case being Rules 12 (b) and 12 (c) of the M.P. Civil Services
(General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961, which governed the case.
E
In the proper perspective, these two rules did not apply in this
case. T.he High Court was right in the view it took in the matter.
This Court was unable to sustain the reasoning and view of the Single
Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Umeshnarayan Mishra
& Ors. v. The State of M.P. & Ors. in Civil Misc. Petition No. 181
of 1983. [74C; 75F]
F
~
\.
In view of the short length of service of the appellant, if the
appellant made a representation, the respondent would consider the
same in the light of the principles oflaw and equity. [7SG]

## Text

),
VASANT KUMAR JAISWAL
A
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
SEPTEMBER 8, 1987.
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]
B
Service matter-Seniority on the basis of length of serviceDetermination of-In the absence of any statutory rule or executive
memorandum or order relating to determination of seniority.
~
This was an appeal against the judgment and order of the High c
Court of Madhya Pradesh, which in accordance with the well-settled
principle laid down by this Court as also the High Court, held .that in
~
the absence of any statutory rule or executive memorandum or order
laying down the rule for determination of seniority in a gra4e, the
normal rule applicable would be to determine the seniority on the basis
of length of service.
D
Disposing of the Appeal, the Court,
HELD: Counsel for the appellant contended that there were two
rules in the case being Rules 12 (b) and 12 (c) of the M.P. Civil Services
(General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961, which governed the case.
E
In the proper perspective, these two rules did not apply in this
case. T.he High Court was right in the view it took in the matter.
This Court was unable to sustain the reasoning and view of the Single
Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Umeshnarayan Mishra
& Ors. v. The State of M.P. & Ors. in Civil Misc. Petition No. 181
of 1983. [74C; 75F]
F
~
\.
In view of the short length of service of the appellant, if the
appellant made a representation, the respondent would consider the
same in the light of the principles oflaw and equity. [7SG]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2189 G
of 1987.
~
From the Judgment and Order dated 21st January, 1985 of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 1657 of 1984.
V.A. Bobde, and D.N. Mishra for the Appellant.
H
73
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] 1 S.C.R.
A
T.C. Sharma for the Respondent.
B
c
D
E
r
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SABY ASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave granted.
This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh which in accordance with the well settled
principle of this Court as also the High Court held that in the absence
of any statutory rule of executive memorandum or order laying down
the rule for determination of seniority in a grade, the normal rule
applicable would be to determine the seniority on the basis of length in
service. Counsel for the appellant contends that in the instant case
there were two rules being 12(b) and 12(c) of the M.P. Civil Services
(General Conditions of Services) Rules 1961 governing the case.
These rules read as follows:-
"(b). Promoted Government Servants:
A promoted Government servant shall count his seniority
from the date of his confirmation in the service to which he
has been promoted and shall be placed in the gradation list
immediately below the last confirmed member of that
service but above all the probationers.
Provided that where two or more promoted Government servants are confirmed with effect from the same date
the appointing authority shall determine their inter-seseniority in the service in which they are confirmed, with
due regard to the order in which they were included in the
merit list, if any prepared for determining their suitability
for promotion, and their relative seniority in the lower
service from which they have been promoted.
( c) Officiating Government Servants:-
The inter-se-seniority of Government servants promoted to
officiate in a higher service or a higher category of posts
shall during the period of their officiation, be the same as
that in their substantive service or grade irrespective of the
dates on which they began to officiate in the higher service
or grade; Provided that-
...
-\
I
V.K. JAISWAL v. STATE OF M.P. [MUKHARJI, J.]
75
(i) If they were selected for officiation from a list in which
A
the names of Government servants considered suitable for trial in or promotion to the higher service or
grade were arranged in order of merit. Their inter-seseniority shall be determined in accordance with the
order of merit in such list;
(ii) the seniority of a permanent servant appointed to officiate in another service or post by transfer shall be
determined adhoc by the appointing authority;
Provided that the seniority proposed to be assigned to
such Government servant shall be determined and intimated to him in the order of appointment;
(iii) where a permanent Government servant is reduced to
a lower service, grade or category of posts, he shall
rank in the gradation list of the latter service, grade or
category of posts above all the other in that gradation
B
c
list unless the authority ordering such reduction by a D
special order indicates a different position in the gradation list for such reduced Government servant,
(iv) where an offici~ting Government servant is reverted
to this substantive service or posts he shall revert to his
position in that gradation list relating to his substantive appointment which he held before he was appoinE
ted to officiate in the other service or post."
In the proper perspective these two rules do not apply in this matter.
In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the High Court
was right. We are unable in this connectic>n to sustain the reasoning
and the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of the said High F
Court in Civil Misc. Petition No. 181 of 1983-Umeshnaryan Mishra &
Ors. v. TheStateofM.P. & Ors.
In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that the
High Court is right in dismissing the petition under appeal and the
view it took was correct.
G
In view of the short length of service of the appellant, if the
appellant makes a representation, the respondent in the light of the
principles of law and equity will consider such representation.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
S.L.
Appeal disposed of. H