G. R. Luthra, Additional District ... vs Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors on 3 September, 1974
A perusal of this rule would manifestly show that the
petitioner was treated as senior to respondent No. 3
throughout his whole career and even in the initial
recruitment by which the Delhi Higher Judicial Service came
into existence, the petitioner was shown senior to
respondent No. 3, and, therefore, on a plain reading of rule
6(3) there was no merit in the representation of respondent
No. 3 and according to the second part of the rule since
inter-se seniority had already been fixed initially, the
petitioner would be deemed to be senior to the respondent
No. 3 and this seniority could not be altered. With due
respect to the Hon'ble Judges we feel that the construction
placed by the High Court on rule 6(3) was not correct. The
High Court appears to have relied on a decision of this
Court in G. R. Luthra, Additional District Judge, Delhi v.
Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors. which is clearly distinguishable
from the facts and circumstances of the present case and in
which the history of the services of the two officers had
not been placed or argued nor was respondent No. 3 a party
to that petition and, therefore, his case never came up for
consideration before this Court. Therefore, this Court had
no occasion to consider the various aspects of the question
which ex-hypothesi, did not arise. The facts and
circumstances under which the petitioner's seniority was
maintained by giving a proforma promotion to respondent No.
3 and protecting the seniority of the petitioner by concept
of next below rule was also not brought to the notice of the
Court.