S.Sumnyan
& Ors. Vs. Limi Niri & Ors. [2010] INSC 292 (20 April 2010)
Judgment
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3512 OF
2010 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8510 of 2009] S. SUMNYAN & ORS. ...
Appellants Versus LIMI NIRI & ORS. .... Respondents
Dr.
Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 19.02.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court,
whereby the High Court affirmed the judgment and order of the learned Single
Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the private respondent No. 1 herein
and holding that necessary correction be made in the seniority list of the
Civil Engineers and recast the same by accepting the date of appointment of the
respondent No. 1 as on 02.05.1989 and those of the appellants herein from their
respective dates of regularization and that the ad-hoc period of service
rendered by them as Assistant Engineers would not be counted towards their
seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer.
3.
The appellants herein are aggrieved by the aforesaid directions
issued by the learned Single Judge which were subsequently affirmed by the
Division Bench of the High Court, since by the aforesaid direction they are
losing the benefit of service period of about two years rendered by them as
Assistant Engineers on ad-hoc basis for the purpose of counting their seniority
in the rank of Assistant Engineer.
4.
The appellants herein were appointed on temporary and ad-hoc basis
as Assistant Engineers [Civil] by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the
Public Works Department on various dates between the years 1986 and 1988 on the
condition that they would be regularized according to the Rules on the
recommendation of a Selection Board constituted by the Government. The State of
Arunachal Pradesh came to be constituted as a separate State of the Republic of
India on 20.02.1987. Consequent to such constitution, Arunachal Pradesh Public
Service Commission was also constituted under Gazette notification dated
29.03.1988.
5.
The respondent No. 1 - Limi Niri herein was also appointed on
ad-hoc basis in the year 1988 to the post of the Assistant Engineer with a
specific condition that he would be regularized according to the relevant Rules
on the recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission.
Sometime in the month of May, 1988, an advertisement was issued inviting
applications for filling up the posts of the Assistant Engineers [Civil] and
the Assistant Engineers [Electrical] in the Public Works Department of the
Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The respondent No. 1 submitted his application
pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. He was found suitable for such
appointment as Assistant Engineer [Civil] and consequently he was issued an
appointment letter dated 19.04.1989 for his appointment with a condition that
he shall be on the post on probation for a period of two years and that his
appointment shall not commence before 02.05.1989.
6.
A provisional seniority list as on 31.08.1990 of Assistant
Engineers [Civil] in the Arunachal Pradesh Public Works Department was issued
and the appellants herein were shown as seniors to the respondent no. 1. In the
year 1993, some of the appellants were promoted as Executive Engineers on
ad-hoc basis and a provisional seniority list of Executive Engineers in the
Arunachal Pradesh Public Works Department was circulated and the names of some
of the appellants were shown in the said list of the Executive Engineers. In
the year 1997, a further seniority list as on 31.03.1997 of the Assistant
Engineers [Civil], which showed the position of various appellants as senior to
the respondent no. 1, was circulated for claims and objections. Some of the
appellants were thereafter promoted to the posts of the Executive Engineer and
the Superintending Engineer and confirmed in the said posts and at least one of
them is now occupying the post of the Chief Engineer.
7.
The authorities after promoting the appellants to the posts of
Executive Engineers in between the period from 1991 to 2001 regularized the
ad-hoc promotions in the post of the Executive Engineer by an order dated
15.02.2001. A final seniority list of the Superintending Engineers and the
Executive Engineers as on 29.08.2001 was published. Regularization of some of
the appellants by order dated 15.02.2001 and final seniority list [as on
29.08.2001] of Superintending Engineers [Civil] and Executive Engineers
circulated on 31.08.2001 were never put in challenge by anyone.
8.
In the year 2001, the respondent no. 1 herein filed the aforesaid
writ petition against the seniority position ascribed and shown in the
seniority list dated 15.03.1999 and sought for a direction that he is senior to
the appellants herein as he was regularly selected in 1989 by the Arunachal
Pradesh Public Service Commission. The appellants and the State Government
filed their counter affidavit in the said writ petition contending, inter alia,
that the appellants were appointed prior to the constitution of the Arunachal
Pradesh Public Service Commission on 29.03.1988. The appointment of Group-B
post in the Public Works Department of Arunachal Pradesh was guided by the
Arunachal Pradesh Administration [Public Works Department] Group-B Post Recruitment
Rules, 1983 and the appointment of the appellants was made as per the said
Recruitment Rules in the absence of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission at the relevant time.
Their
services also were regularized in terms of the said Rules which provided that a
minimum service period of two years, known as period of probation, was
necessary for rendering service in the capacity of Assistant Engineer for all
appointments made by Government to these posts since 1980. The services of the
appellants were regularized as stated hereinabove giving them the benefit of
service from the actual date of their joining the service.
9.
Before the constitution of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission such regularizations were given by convening meetings of the
Departmental Promotion Committee. However, by the time the cases of the
appellants could be taken up for consideration for regularization of their
services on completion of two years period of probation, the Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission came to be constituted and therefore the cases for
regularization of the services of the appellants were considered by the
Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, which recommended the
regularization of the services of the appellants from the date of their initial
appointment. It was also pointed out that not giving retrospective effect to
regularization of the services of the appellants by Arunachal Pradesh Public
Service Commission would have been a deviation from the past practices and that
would have caused prejudice and grievance amongst the appellants as also
disparity in application of the Service Rules. It was also pointed out that the
appellants and the respondents were inducted into the Government service
through two separately and different modes of recruitment, one taking place
before the constitution of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and
the other after the constitution of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission.
10.
The learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court took up the
aforesaid writ petition for hearing and by its judgment and order dated
29.04.2005 allowed the writ petition and directed the Government of Arunachal
Pradesh to make necessary changes in the seniority list by recasting the same
by accepting the date of appointment of the respondent no.1 as on 02.05.1989
and those of the appellants from the respective dates of their regularization
and that the ad-hoc period of service rendered by them would not be counted
towards the seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer.
11.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, an appeal was
filed before the Division Bench of the High Court which was heard accordingly
and by a judgment and order dated 19.02.2009 the Division Bench dismissed the writ
appeal filed by the appellants and confirmed the judgment and order passed by
the learned Single Judge. Being so aggrieved, the present appeal was filed by
the appellants herein which was entertained and on completion of the pleadings,
we have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
12.
Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted before us that
since the appellants herein were appointed prior to the respondent no.1 in
point of time and they were also regularized from an earlier date, they had
been rightly shown by the concerned Department to be senior to the respondent
no. 1. The counsel for the appellant further submitted before us that therefore
in any view of the matter the appointment of the appellants having been made by
the State Government prior to the constitution of the Arunachal Pradesh Public
Service Commission and their regularisation on the recommendation of the State
Public Service Commission after successful completion of two years probationary
service, having not been challenged by any party, including the respondent no.
1 herein, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the seniority
position and the length of service rendered by the appellants in counting the
said ad-hoc period of service for the benefit of their seniority.
13.
It was also submitted that not only their services rendered as
temporary and ad-hoc service were recognized and counted towards their
seniority while regularizing their service as Assistant Engineer with a
retrospective date of their initial appointment, but even some of the
appellants, in the meantime, depending on their seniority in the post of the
Assistant Engineer were considered and promoted during the period from 1991 to
2001 to the post of the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer and
one of them was even promoted to the post of the Chief Engineer. However,
despite the aforesaid situation, no objection or challenge was made till 2001.
It was further submitted that the High Court acted illegally and without
jurisdiction in setting aside the benefit given to them as far back as
20.07.1989, although, in the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1, the
said order was not challenged. It was also submitted that the respondent no. 1
himself not having raised any grievance against the initial appointment of the
appellants as temporary and ad-hoc Assistant Engineers and also having not
protested their regularization of service on the recommendation of the
Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission from the date of their initial
appointment and the said order having become final and binding no interference
was called for from the High Court on the basis of a writ petition.
14.
The counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1, however, submitted
that though the initial appointment of the appellants has not been challenged
by the respondent no. 1, he is aggrieved by the appellants having been given
the benefit of seniority for the period of service which was rendered on
temporary and ad-hoc basis. The counsel for the respondents also submitted that
since the initial appointment of the appellants was irregular and de hors the
relevant Rules, they are entitled to get their seniority only from the date
when their were regularized by the competent authority and therefore the
judgment and order passed by the High Court is just and proper. It was also
submitted by the counsel for the respondents that had the appellants so
desired, they could have, as he (respondent no.1) had done, submitted their
application for being considered as a regular appointee pursuant to the
advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission. The counsel for the
respondents further emphasized the fact some of the appellants had availed the
said opportunity, which fact would indeed show that they were fully conscious
of the fact that their initial appointment was not in accordance with the
existing rules and that the same was required to be regularized by following a
proper procedure and therefore their seniority could be counted only from the
date they were so regularized in the service on the basis of the recommendation
of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission.
15.
In the light of the aforesaid submissions and averments made by
the counsel appearing for the appellants, the respondents and the State of Arunachal
Pradesh and after examining the documents placed on record before us, we find
that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the appellants were
appointed as Assistant Engineers on purely temporary and ad-hoc basis. Few of
the letters dated 2nd April, 1986 issued in the case of some of the appellants
are placed on record.
16.
A close perusal of the said letters issued shows that a few of the
appellants had been appointed on 2nd of April, 1986 as Assistant Engineers
purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis as per the relevant terms and conditions.
In clause 3 thereof, it was provided that the appointments would be on purely
temporary and ad-hoc basis until regular appointments are made according to the
Rules on the recommendation of a Selection Board constituted by the Government
and that aforesaid ad-hoc appointments as Assistant Engineer would not entitle
any seniority in the cadre of regular Assistant Engineer.
17.
Clause 8 of the said appointment letter, on the other hand, stated
specifically that his appointment as an Assistant Engineer would be governed by
the relevant Rules and Orders of the Government issued from time to time. There
is also no dispute with regard to the fact that at the relevant time when the
aforesaid appointment letters were issued, the service condition of the
appellants were governed by the Arunachal Pradesh Administration [Public Works
Department] Group-B Post Recruitment Rules, 1983, which is a set of rules
issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. The said Rules also regulate the method of appointment
to the Group-B posts in the Public Works Department and also govern the
recruitment process of the Assistant Engineers [Civil] in the Arunachal Pradesh
Public Works Department. The said Rules provide both direct recruitment and
promotion as methods of recruitment. The said Rules further provide that in
case of a failure to recruit by the aforesaid methods, transfer on deputation
shall be employed and that the period of probation for such appointment would
be for two years. The Rules laid down further that the Union Public Service
Commission was not required to be consulted in making the recruitment.
18.
The aforesaid appellants after their recruitment on temporary and
ad-hoc basis worked on probation for a period of two years and on completion of
the said period their cases were considered by the State Public Service
Commission and by an order dated 20.07.1989, the appointment of the appellants
was regularised as Assistant Engineer [Civil] against direct recruitment quota.
In the said order, the initial date of joining of the appellant no. 1 to the
post of Assistant Engineer [Civil] on temporary and ad-hoc basis was shown as
04.02.1986 and his date of regularization of appointment in the concerned Grade
was shown to be as 04.02.1986, whereas, the other appellants were also given
similar dates, but the fact remains that their appointment to the post of
Assistant Engineer is shown to have been regularized with effect from the date
of their initial appointment only.
19.
Several seniority lists were published thereafter, showing the
names of the appellants as senior to the respondent no.1 and despite such
publication, which were of course provisional in nature, no objection was
raised by the respondent no. 1. A final seniority list of Assistant Engineers
[Civil] in Arunachal Pradesh Public Works Department as on 01.03.1999 was
published on 15.03.1999 through an Office Memorandum and in the said seniority
list also the names of the appellants were shown senior to the respondent no.
1. In the said seniority list also not only the date of their initial
appointment in the post of Assistant Engineer was shown but also the date of
their confirmation in the Grade was also shown which was from the date of their
initial appointment. When the aforesaid final seniority list was published, the
respondent no. 1 finally filed a writ petition in 2001 challenging the
seniority position given to the appellants.
20.
On the 2nd of March, 2001, a Gazette notification had also been
published which clearly indicates that not only the appellants were confirmed
in the post of Assistant Engineer [Civil] but they were also confirmed in the
post of the Executive Engineers [Civil] and at least some of them have since
been promoted to the post of the Superintending Engineer and one of them is at
least occupying become the post of the Chief Engineer. The respondents in their
writ petition had neither challenged the initial appointment order of the
appellants appointing them as Assistant Engineers [Civil] on temporary and
ad-hoc basis under the 1983 Rules, nor had they challenged the subsequent order
passed by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh on the recommendation of the
Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission regularising the services of the appellants
as Assistant Engineers from the date of their initial appointment. Not only
these orders were not challenged by the respondent no. 1 in the writ petition
filed by him but the subsequent orders of promotion of these appellants to the
post of Executive Engineers and their confirmation in the said post, on the
basis of their seniority positions counting the ad-hoc period of service, were
also not challenged. These orders are therefore final and binding on all
concerned.
21.
As noted earlier by us, several seniority lists, although
provisional in nature, were published in the meantime, showing that the benefit
of ad hoc period had been given to the appellants. But these were never
challenged by the respondent no. 1 and it was only in the year 2001 when some
of them were promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer and one of them to
the post of the Chief Engineer that the respondent no. 1 filed the aforesaid
writ petition.
22.
The High Court without considering those facts have only dealt
with one aspect which is that the initial appointment of the appellants to the
post of Assistant Engineer was de hors the Rules.
The said
findings recorded by both the Single Judge as also the Division Bench were
uncalled for and unjustified for the simple reason that the appointment order
itself indicated that their appointment would be governed by the Service Rules
then existing, i.e., the 1983 Rules.
23.
The fact that their services were regularized from the date of
their initial appointment on the recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public
Service Commission was also totally ignored by the High Court. Thus, these
facts coupled with the fact that none of the aforesaid orders were challenged
by the respondent no.1, would indicate that the said orders are final and
binding on all the persons concerned. The High Court ignored the fact that the
respondent no. 1 himself was bound by the aforesaid orders. The respondent no.1
was bound by his own appointment orders. The appellants had rendered two years
of service as Assistant Engineers and at least some of the appellants including
appellant no. 1 had successfully completed their probation period on 01.04.1988
whereas the respondent no. 1 was appointed as Assistant Engineer on regular
basis and put on probation for two years on 02.05.1989. Therefore, when the
respondent no. 1 was put on probation, the appellant no. 1 and some others had
successfully completed their probation. Thus, for all purposes at all times,
the appellants were senior to the respondent no. 1.
24.
Considering the said fact and also considering the precedents in
the Department that all such employees were regularized from the date of their
initial appointment, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh also regularized the
services of the appellants in the post of Assistant Engineer from the date of
their initial appointment and that was done on the recommendation of the
Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. The order of regularization having
become final and binding on all concerned could not have been ignored and
implicitly set aside by the High Court on a ground that the initial appointment
of the appellants was de hors the Rules, which is totally a non-existent
ground.
25.
There is no denial to the fact that prior to the constitution of
the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission on 29 th March, 1988 the
appointment of Assistant Engineers in the State Public Works Department was
always carried out in accordance with the Arunachal Pradesh Administration
[Public Works Department] Group-B Post Recruitment Rules, 1983. The appointment
of the appellants as indicated by their initial appointment letters issued in
1986 indicate that their appointments were governed as per the said Service
Rules.
26.
Under the said Rules, a minimum service period of two years, known
as period of probation was considered necessary for rendering service in the
capacity of Assistant Engineer for all appointments made by Government to these
posts since 1980. In all cases since 1980 and prior to the constitution of the
State of Arunachal Pradesh as an independent State, the services of the
incumbents were regularised giving them retrospective effect from their
actual/initial date of joining in the service and since at the stage of initial
appointment of the appellants Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission was
non-existent, the regularization of services of such employees were given
through meetings of the Departmental Promotion Committees. By the time
appellants completed their two years of probationary service period, the State
of Arunachal Pradesh came to be constituted and since Arunachal Pradesh Public
Service Commission had come into existence by that time, the cases of
regularization of the services of the appellants were considered by the State
Public Service Commission and on its recommendation their services were
regularized after expiry of the two year period of probation giving
retrospective effect to their regularization from the date of their initial
appointment.
27.
It is clearly stated by the State of Arunachal Pradesh that if
such a retrospective effect to regularization of the services of the appellants
by the State Public Service Commission would not have been given and if it had
deviated from the past practice, the same would have caused prejudice and grievance
and a disparity in the application of the Service Rules as compared to the past
cases.
28.
It is, thus, clearly established that the respondent no. 1 was
inducted into Government service by a separate mode of recruitment than that of
the appellants and therefore their cases cannot be equated. The statement of
the Government of Arunachal Pradesh that the provisional seniority lists were
regularly published by the Public Works Department Secretariat from time to
time since 1990 to 1999, with ample time being given to the incumbents to reply
against any anomaly in the seniority list and that the respondent no. 1 never
submitted any representation in that regard is not disputed. The respondent no.
1, therefore, had challenged the established seniority position after about 10
years and that too without challenging the basic and the fundamental orders of
giving the appellants the benefit of regularised service from their initial
date of appointment as Assistant Engineers.
29.
The challenge appears to us to be belated and in this regard we
would endorse the same view as expressed by this Court in the case of Shri L.
Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Manipur & Ors. reported in (1999) 8 SCC
287 at para 15 which is extracted hereinbelow: - "15. It is now well settled
that even in cases of probation or officiating appointments which are followed
by a confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as
officiating appointment or on probation cannot be ignored for reckoning the
length of continuous officiating service for determining the place in the
seniority list. Where the first appointment is made by not following the
prescribed procedure and such appointee is approved later on, the approval
would mean his confirmation by the authority shall relate back to the date on
which his appointment was made and the entire service will have to be computed
in reckoning the seniority according to the length of continuous officiation.
In this regard we fortify our view by the judgment of this Court in G.P. Doval
and Anr. v. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and Ors. [(1984) 4 SCC
329]."
30.
The respondents have, in support of their case, referred to and
relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of K. Madalaimuthu and
Another v. State of T.N. and Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 558. In order to
appreciate the contention raised by the counsel appearing for the respondents,
we have carefully perused the said decision. However, on a careful scrutiny of
the said judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the said decision is
distinguishable on facts which are noted herein below.
31.
The aforesaid decision was rendered in a fact situation which is
altogether different from the present one and this would be apparent on a bare
perusal of the said decision. In the said case the recruitment of the
respondents therein was admittedly de hors the relevant Recruitment Rules
inasmuch as the said recruitment was particularly made under Rule 10 (a) (i)
(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955. The said
provision is extracted here in below for a proper appreciation of the
situation: - "10 (a) (i) (1): Where it is necessary in the public interest
owing to an emergency which has arisen to fill immediately a vacancy in a post
borne on the cadre of a service, class or category and there would be undue
delay in making such appointment in accordance with these rules and the Special
Rules, the appointing authority may temporarily appoint a person, who possess
the qualifications prescribed for the post otherwise than in accordance with
the said rules."
(emphasis
supplied)
32.
It is clear from the judgment in the said case that the
respondents therein had been appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) which provides
for recruitments in emergent circumstances and allows the appointing authority
to make appointments otherwise than in accordance with the said Rules. It was
in this context that this Court held that the respondents therein will get
benefit of their seniority only from the date they were regularized in the
cadre to which they had been appointed. In the case at hand, however, the fact
situation is totally different on account of the fact that the appointment
letters issued to the appellants appointing them as temporary and ad-hoc basis
as Assistant Engineers in the Public Works Department specifically mentioned
that the appellants will be governed by the Service Rules and also that they
would be regularized according to the Rules on the recommendation of a
Selection Board constituted by the Government. We would like to extract both
the aforesaid conditions formulating part of the terms and conditions contained
in the appointment letters issued to the appellants: - "3. This
appointment will be on purely temporary and ad hoc basis until regular appointment
are made according to rules on the recommendation of a selection Board
constituted by the Government.
(No
increment in time scale will be permissible till their appointment is
regularized. This adhoc appointment as Assistant Engineer will not entitle any
seniority in the cadre of regular Assistant Engineer"
"8.
His appointment will be governed by the relevant Rules and Orders of the
Government issued from time to time"
33.
In that view of the matter there was not only a case of the
appellants having a legitimate expectation that their cases would be considered
for regularization by the competent authority but also a case where the Service
Rules were also made applicable to the appellants. When the Arunachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission ("the APPSC") considered the cases of the
appellants for regularization on completion of their probationary period of two
years, all the said factors weighed with the APPSC and consequently it was
decided to regularize them from the date of their initial appointment.
Therefore, in the facts of the present case, ratio laid down in the case of
Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh (supra) would be squarely applicable.
34.
We may here also appropriately refer to another decision of this
Court in the case of G.P. Doval v. Chief Secy., Govt. of U.P.
reported
in (1984) 4 SCC 329, wherein this Court held that regularization of the
services of a person, whose initial appointment although not in accordance with
the prescribed procedure but later on approved by an authority having power and
jurisdiction to do so would always relate back to the dates of their initial
appointment.
Para 13
is, which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"13.
..........................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 commonsense 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 has not been done in
this case..................
........"
35. We
may also usefully refer to the judgment of this Court in Direct Recruit Class
II Engineering Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1990) 2 SCC
715, which reads as follows:
"47.
To sum up, we hold that:
(A) Once
an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be
counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his
confirmation.................................
......."
36. The
other aspect of the matter which is to be noted is that when the respondents
were appointed to the service as Assistant Engineers on the recommendation of
the APPSC, the said appointment was on probation for a period of two years.
Some of the appellants had successfully completed their probation period on
20.07.1989, after their cases had been taken up for regularization by the
APPSC. Therefore, when considered from any angle there is no justification for
denial of the benefit of seniority to the appellants from the date of their initial
appointment which is also in tune with the legal principles laid down by this
Court as referred to hereinbefore and in that view of the matter the aforesaid
decision which is relied upon by the counsel appearing for the respondents is
held to be not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
37. In
view of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the orders passed by the Single
Judge as well as by the Division Bench of the High Court. Consequently, the
Writ Petition filed by respondent no. 1 in the High Court would stand
dismissed.
38.
Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
...........................................J. [ Dr. Mukundakam
Sharma ]
..........................................J. [ H.L. Dattu ]
New Delhi,
April 20, 2010.
Back