State of Uttarakhand
& Another Vs. Archana Shukla & Others
O R D E R
Civil Appeal No.5130
of 2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Appeal has been filed
against the impugned judgment and order dated 06th March, 2006 passed by the
High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 140/2005. The facts
have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same
here except wherever necessary. The respondents herein were appointed on adhoc officiating
post in the year 1988 for a fixed term which was continued. They were
regularised in the year 2004 under the Uttaranchal Regularization of Ad Hoc Appointments
(Posts under the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002 ( for short
'the Rules').
The respondents
claimed benefit of their service from 1988 to 2004 for the purpose of seniority
and this has been granted by the High Court. Hence, this appeal.CIVIL APPEAL
NO.5130 OF 2009 etc. We are afraid, we cannot agree with the view taken by the High
Court. Rule 7(1) of the Rules states as under: "A person appointed under
these rules shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of order of appointment
after selection in accordance with these rules and shall, in all cases, be placed
below the persons appointed in accordance with the relevant service rules or as
the case may be, the regular prescribed procedure, prior in the appointment of such
person under these rules." Admittedly, the respondents were appointed after
a selection under the Regularization Rules in the year 2004. Hence, in our view,
they can get seniority only from the year 2004 and not from 1988. The rule is
clear and hence we cannot debar from the clear meaning of the rule.
It has been held in Raghunath
Rai Bareja & Another vs. Punjab National Bank & Others (2007) 2 SCC 230
that when there is a conflict between law and equity, it is the law which has to
prevail in accordance with the latin maxim 'dura lex sed lex' which means 'the
law is hard but it is the law'. Equity can only supplement the law, but it
cannot supplant or override it. This view was followed in Civil Appeal No.2684
of 2007 titled B.Premanand & Others vs. Mohan Koikal & Others decided
on 16th March, 2011. In the present case, Rule 7 is very clear and hence the CIVIL
APPEAL NO.5130 OF 2009 etc. respondents are not entitled to the benefit of
their service from 1988 to 2004 for the purpose of their seniority. Accordingly,
this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set
aside. No costs. Civil Appeal No.1474 of 2007 In view of our order passed today
in Civil Appeal No. 5130 of 2009, this appeal is also allowed and the impugned judgment
of the High Court is set aside. No costs.
.........................J.
[MARKANDEY KATJU]
.........................J.
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]
NEW
DELHI;
JULY
20, 2011
Back
Pages: 1 2
