Kumar Jaiswal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh  INSC 242 (8 September 1987)
SABYASACHI (J) MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) OZA, G.L. (J)
1987 AIR 2322 1988 SCR (1) 73 1987 SCC (4) 450 JT 1987 (3) 550 1987 SCALE
INFO : APL 1989 SC 278 (22)
matter-Seniority on the basis of length of service-Determination of-In the
absence of any statutory rule or executive memorandum or order relating to
determination of seniority.
was an appeal against the judgment and order of the High 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 grade, the normal rule applicable would be to determine the
seniority on the basis of length of service.
of the Appeal, the Court,
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. In the proper perspective,
these two rules did not apply in this case. The 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] 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 of law and equity. [75G]
Appellate Jurisdiction: Civil Appeal No. 2 189 of 1987.
the Judgment and order dated 21st January, 1985 of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court in Misc. Petition No. 1657 of 1984.
Bobde, and D.N. Mishra for the Appellant. 74 T.C. Sharma for the Respondent.
Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. Special leave
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:
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.
that where two or more promoted Government servants are confirmed with effect
from the same date the appointing authority shall determine their
inter-se-seniority 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.
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 .
substantive service or grade irrespective of the dates on which they began to
officiate in the higher service or grade; Provided that- 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-se- seniority shall be
determined in accordance with the order of merit in such list;
the seniority of a permanent servant appointed to officiate in another service
or post by transfer shall be determined adhoc by the appointing authority;
that the seniority proposed to be assigned to such Government servant shall be
determined and intimated to him in the order of appointment; C (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 list unless the
authority ordering such reduction by a special order indicates a different
position in the gradation list for such reduced Government servant, (iv) where
an officiating 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 appointed 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 connection to sustain the
reasoning and the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of the said High Court
in Civil Misc. Petition No. 181 of 1983-Umeshnaryan Mishra & ors. v.The
State of M. 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.
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.
appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Appeal disposed of.