Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.39 seconds)State Of Bihar And Others Etc vs Akhouri Sachindra Nath And Others Etc on 19 April, 1991
"On an issue regarding the interse seniority among the direct
recruits and promotees the Court applying the ratio of State
of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindranath held that the
appellants who were direct recruits shall be considered
senior over the promotees not borne on the cadre when the
direct recruits were appointed in service. Hence the
gradation list drawn under which promotees where given
seniority over direct recruits could not be sustained and was
thereby set aside".
A. Janardhana vs Union Of India And Others on 26 April, 1983
He further relied on A. Janardhana v. Union of India, (1983)
3 SCC 601, where it was held as under:
Keshav Chandra Joshi And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 November, 1990
In the case of
Keshav Chandra Joshi & Ors v. Union of India & Ors,
1992 Supp.1 SCC 272, this Court observed that,
"It is notorious that confirmation of an employee in a
substantive post would take place long years after the
retirement. An employee is entitled to be considered for
promotion on regular basis to a higher post if he/she is an
approved probationer in the substantive lower post. An
officer appointed by promotion in accordance with Rules and
within quota and on declaration of probation is entitled to
reckon his seniority from the date of promotion and the
entire length of service, though initially temporary, shall be
counted for seniority. Ad-hoc or fortuitous appointments on
a temporary or stop gap basis cannot be taken into account
for the purpose of seniority, even if the appointee was
subsequently qualified to hold the post on a regular basis. To
give benefit of such service would be contrary to equality
enshrined in Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the
Constitution as unequals would be treated as equals. When
promotion is out side the quota, the seniority would be
reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota,
rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous
promotion would be regular only from the date of the
vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from
that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or
sub-sequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the
promotees it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct
recruits. The rule of quota being a statutory one it must be
strictly implemented and it is impermissible for the
authorities concerned to deviate from the rule due to
administrative exigencies or expediency. The result of
pushing down the promotees appointed in excess of the
quota may work out hardship but it is unavoidable and any
construction otherwise would be illegal, nullifying the force
of statutory rules and would offend Articles 14 and 16(1).
Therefore, the rules must be carefully applied in such a
manner as not to violate the rules or equality assured under
Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court interpreted that
equity is an integral part of Article 14. So every attempt
would be made to minimise, as far as possible, inequity,
Disparity is inherent in the system of working out integration
of the employees drawn from different sources, who have
legitimate aspiration to reach higher echelons of service. A
feeling of hardship to one, or heart burning to either would
be avoided. At the same time equality is accorded to all the
employees."
Sanjay K. Sinha-Ii And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 31 May, 2004
In Sanjay Kumar Sinha & Ors v. State of Bihar &
Ors, (2004) 10 SCC 734, this court observed that,
"6. In our view the first point regarding alleged non-
availability of posts of ACFs for appointment of promotees at
the relevant time is sufficient to decide this appeal. On the
question of availability of posts the case of the appellants is
that posts were not available and in the absence of the posts
no appointments could be made. Still the respondents had
gone ahead with the appointments of the promotees. Such
appointments are mere fortuitous and cannot confer the
benefit of seniority from the date of appointment. The first
document relied upon in support of this contention is a letter
dated 23rd September, 1985 from the Chief Conservator,
Forests and Environment Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna. The letter directly deals with the question of
promotion of Forest Range Officer (FRO) to the post of
Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF). The letter notes that
under Rule 3 of the Bihar Forest Service Rules, at least 50%
of the total existing vacancies have to be filled by promotion.
It goes on to add: "Presently there are 125 officers in the
cadre in the Bihar Forest Service, out of which 105 have
been promoted from the post of Range Officer and rest are
appointed by way of direct recruitment." According to this
letter as per the cadre strength of the posts of ACF in Bihar
State Forest Service, the promoted officers constituted 84%.
The Chief Conservator of Forests expressed his view in the
said letter that filling such large number of posts by way of
promotions affects the quality of service. The Chief
Conservator of Forests also notes that the State Service
Commission had already issued advertisement for filling 40
posts of ACFs by direct recruitment. He has opined that in
these circumstances it would not be proper to fill up the
posts of ACF by promotion. This letter highlights the
imbalance already existing in the service qua the posts of
ACF so far as appointments of direct recruitment and
promotees are concerned."
D. Ganesh Rao Patnaik And Others vs State Of Jharkhand And Others on 6 October, 2005
Further in the case of D.Ganesh Rao Patnaik & Ors v.
State of Jharkhand & Ors, (2005) 8 SCC 454, this court
opined that,
". that the appointment of the contesting respondents was
not only contrary to Rules but was fortuitous in nature and
they can get no advantage of such fortuitous appointment
until a substantive vacancy was available in their quota,
which in fact became available much later some time in the
year 1993-94, which is long after the appointment of the
appellants.
K.C. Joshi vs Union Of India And Ors on 23 April, 1985
? That no retrospective promotion or seniority can be
granted from a date when an employee has not even
been borne in the cadre so as to be adversely
appointed validly in the meantime, as decided by
this court in the case of K.C. Joshi vs. Union of
India, 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 227.
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs C. Lalitha on 31 January, 2006
We also observe that, the High Court has granted
seniority without even reference to Seniority Rules of 8, and in
particular the proviso thereto, has not been taken into
consideration. The said rules have overriding effect and hence
seniority has to be consistent with the Rules. By virtue of Rule
8, Seniority can be given only from 'the date of substantive
appointment'. In this case, the promotees were appointed on
17.07.1991 and therefore cannot be given seniority over the
appellants who were substantively appointed prior in point of
time i.e. in 1990. It is specifically indicated in proviso to Rule 8
that, "Where appointments from any source fall short of the
prescribed quota and appointment against such unfilled
vacancies are made in subsequent year or years, the persons so
appointed shall not get seniority of any earlier year, but shall
get seniority of the year in which their appointments are made."
These rules were in force in 1991 when the Deputy
Forest Rangers were promoted to the post of Forest Rangers
on 17.07.1991. Also it is well settled that seniority has to be
decided on the basis of Rules in force on the date of
appointment. It was observed by this court in the case of
State of Karnataka & Ors v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747,
that,
"Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to
time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be
treated similarly. Only because one person has approached
the court that would not mean that persons similarly
situated should be treated differently. It is furthermore well-
settled that the question of seniority should be governed by
the rules. It may be true that this Court took notice of the
subsequent events, namely, that in the meantime she had
also been promoted as Assistant Commissioner which was a
Category I Post but the direction to create a supernumerary
post to adjust her must be held to have been issued only
with a view to accommodate her therein as otherwise she
might have been reverted and not for the purpose of
conferring a benefit to which she was not otherwise entitled
to."
Union Of India vs S.S. Uppal And Anr on 9 January, 1996
It was also observed in the case of Union of India v.
S.S.Uppal & Anr., (1996) 2 SCC 168 that,
"12. We are of the view that the question of seniority of
Uppal, the respondent No. 1, has to be determined by the
rules in force on the date of his appointment to IAS. The
fixation of seniority in the IAS follows appointment to the
service. The Year of Allotment in the IAS will have to be
determined according to the provisions of seniority rules
which are in force at the time of his appointment. The date of
occurrence of vacancy has really no relevance for the
purpose of fixation of seniority in the IAS. The fixation of
seniority is done only after an officer is appointed to IAS. The
Central Government is competent to amend the seniority
rules from time to time keeping in view the exigencies of
administration."
Col. D.D. Joshi And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 1 March, 1983
We are also of the view that no retrospective promotion or
seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has
not even been borne in the cadre so as to be adversely
appointed validly in the meantime, as decided by this court in
the case of K.C. Joshi & others vs. Union of India, 1992
Suppl (1) SCC 272 held that when promotion is outside the
quota, seniority would be reckoned from the date of the
vacancy within the quota rendering the previous service
fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only
from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority
shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his
earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do
justice to the promotees, it would not be proper to do injustice
to the direct recruits. The rule of quota being a statutory one,
it must be strictly implemented and it is impermissible for the
authorities concerned to deviate from the rule due to
administrative exigencies or expediency. The result of pushing
down the promotees appointed in excess of the quota may
work out hardship, but it is unavoidable and any construction
otherwise would be illegal, nullifying the force of statutory
rules and would offend Articles 14 and 16(1) of the
Constitution.