Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The petitioner contends that he took over as a Munsif on 8 October 1954 and had worked as a confirmed Judicial Officer with effect from 1 April 1951, i.e., for a period of three and a half years, and was, therefore, entitled to two years of seniority under the order of the State Government dated 3 November 1958 and under the formulae worked out by the Government his assumed date of appointment as Munsif worked out to 8 October 1952. The petitioner was, therefore, to be placed below the batch which had joined the service in the year immediately preceding-the year of assumed date, i.e., to be placed below those who had joined in the year 1951. He also contends that there was no competitive examination for appointment to the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Judicial Branch) in the year 1950 and as such no one joined in the year 1951 and the last officer who had joined the Judicial Branch in 1950 was Sri Om Prakash and the petitioner and other officers were to be placed below him. While applying the formulae enunciated in the order dated 3 November 1958 and giving exact places in the gradation list of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Judicial Branch) officers, a mistake was committed and the mistake was that the petitioner along with three other officers was placed below Sri P. N. Dubey who had joined in 1952 while they were to be placed below the candidates who had joined in 1951.

had reference to the year of competitive examination. Sri Shanti Bhushan submitted that the proposal contained in the letter of the State Government dated 1 September 1958 was accepted by this Court and came up for final consideration of the Government and was finally approved by the Minister of Justice on 3 October 1958 and the Deputy Secretary of the Appointment Department directed the office to put up a draft of a letter for being issued for implementing the decision of the Minister of Justice. A draft letter was put up by the office of the Secretariat and was approved by the Deputy Secretary who directed the order dated 3 November 1953 to be issued but a mistake had crept in the draft prepared by the office by inadvertence and the mistake was that the year of joining-took the place of the year of competitive examination and, therefore, when this error was noticed in 1961 the Government again wrote to this Court for its views in the matter. By a letter dated 8 August 1962 the Registrar of this Court informed the State Government that this Court was unable to agree to any departure being made from the principle which had originally been agreed to by the Court in its letter dated 18 September 1958. It was pointed out that if the error which had crept in the order dated 3 November 1958 was not rectified, it would mean perpetuating a wrong which had crept in unintentionally. On the receipt of this letter the Government decided to accept the views of this Court and to rectify the error and it was for this reason that the orders dated 31 December 1962 and 31 May 1963 were issued. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that no alteration was made in the decision of the Government but only a mistake which had crept in the orders dated 3 November 1958 and 13 March 1959 was corrected. Sri Shanti Bhushan also contended that Rule 32 of the rules is in general terms and does not directly deal with seniority which is specifically dealt with by Rule 22. It was urged by the learned Counsel that the State Government always has the power to revise an order and to alter the terms and conditions of service of its servants and when a servant joins the service of the State Government, he joins it with that risk and, therefore, there can be no estoppel against the Government. According to Sri Shanti Bhushan, the two impugned orders do not hit Articles 16 and 311(2) of the Constitution.

30. It must, therefore?, be held that the State Government could not supersede the orders of 3 November 1958 and 13 March 1959 by the two impugned orders dated 31 December 1962 and 31 May 1963.

31. According to the petitioner he was recruited to the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Judicial Branch) under the orders of the Governor as contemplated by Rule 32 (2) of the rules and was, therefore, entitled to as much equal protection of the law as the others who were recruited under Rule 6 of the rules. The case of the State Government, on the other hand, is that the only method of recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Judicial Branch) is by competitive examination and an ad hoc recruitment under Rule 32 is not a normal method of recruitment and therefore the petitioner having joined the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Judicial Branch) on 8 October 1954, could not be made senior to those who joined in 1951, 1952 and 1953. According to the learned Senior Standing Counsel, it is Rule 22 of the rules which is relevant in this ease and according to Rule 22 the seniority of officers in the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Judicial Branch) is determined according to the year of the competitive examination by which they were recruited to the service. Sri Shanti Bhushan, therefore, urged that Rule 22 is the only rule which deals with seniority of officers and has not been superseded by any subsequent rule.

35. Rule 22, in my view, is limited in its operation inasmuch as it applies only to those officers who came into service by competitive examination as provided for in Rule 6. Seniority, however, has to be determined in respect of every officer in the cadre whether he came into it by competitive examination or otherwise. When appointments are made by the Governor otherwise than as a result of a competitive examination, seniority has to be determined under Rule 32. Rule 32 (1) of the rules says that nothing shall limit the Governor's power to determine the seniority of officers governed by the rule. The proviso to Rule 32 (1) is important. It takes away the arbitrariness of the Governor's power and provides that the case shall not be dealt with in a manner detrimental to an officer.