SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(SC) 215

1998(2) Supreme 363
Supreme Court of India
(From Kerala High Court)
Sujata V. Manohar & D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
R. Suseela Devi -Appellant
versus
Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4356 of 1984
Decided on 12-2-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K. Sukumaran, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Baby Krishnan, Ms. Karthika, R. Jayanathan, Advocates.
For the Respondents : K.M.K. Nair, Advocate.

Important Point
When promotions are made to the next higher post, the seniormost in the lower cadre will normally be promoted, when promotions are by seniority subject to fitness.

Headnote:Service Law-Promotions by seniority subject to fitness-Senior­most in the lower cadre will normally be promoted-Appellant directly recruit­ed as Assistant Grade II in the General Secretariat Service was senior to respondents 2 to 9-Promotion for the post of Assistant Grade I-Respondents 2 to 9 were given the date of promotion which was prior to the date given to appellant, making the appellant junior to respondents 2 to 9-Respon­dent’s case that her actual date of joining that cadre was later than the actual date of joining of respondents 2 to 9-Respondents 2 to 9 completed their period of probation earlier than the appellant and hence they became eligible for promotion earli­er than the appellant-Whether respondents were justified in placing the appellant as junior to respondents 2 to 9 in the cadre of Assist­ant Grade I?-(No).

       Held : The promotion in the present case was dependant entirely upon the seniority of the person concerned in the cadre of Assistants Grade II. The senio­rity in the cadre of Assistants Grade II was dependant upon the date of advice received from the Public Service Commission, since candidates were directly recruited as Assistants Grade II. This sen­iority did not depend upon the date of completion of probation of the direct recruits so appointed. This is because the date of completion of probation will depend upon other fortuitous circumstances. The date of joining may also depend upon various fortuitous circumstances. Seniority does not depend upon these fortuitous circumstances. (Para 3)

       Therefore, when promotions are made to the next higher post, the seni­ormost in the lower cadre will normally be promoted, when promo­tions are by seniority subject to fitness. (Para 4)

       The order for regular promotions was issued on 29.12.73. By this date all eligible persons holding the substantive post of Assistants Grade II were qualified for promotion and were actually provisionally promoted on 3rd of July, 1973. Therefore, their inter se seniority on the date of regular promotion was required to be preserved in order to give effect to the principle of seniority being the criterion for promotion to Assistants Grade I when seniority was the only criterion for such promotion. (Para 5)

       

Order

The appellant was appointed as Assistant Grade-II in the General Secretariat Service with the Public Service Commission by an advice dated 29.6.71. The Public Service Commission thereafter issued two further advice lists dated 4.7.71 and 14.7.71. Pursuant to these advice lists, respondents 2 to 9 were also appointed as Assistants Grade-II. The dates of actual joining of various persons shown in these advice lists varied depending upon exigencies of the situation. However, in the seniority list of Assistant Grade-II, admittedly, the appellant was senior to respondents 2 to 9.

2. The next promotional post for Assistant Grade-II is Assistant Grade-I. The promotion is purely by seniority subject to fitness. To qualify for promotion, Assistants Grade-II are required to have com­pleted satisfactorily their two years’ period of probation. On 3.7.73 a number of posts of Assistants Grade I were vacant. Since none of the Assistants Grade II were qualified on that date for promotion because they had not then completed their probation period, they were given provisional promotions by an order of that date. The appellant as well as respondents 2 to 9 were thus provisionally promoted as Assistant Grade I by the order of 3.7.73. In this list also the appellant is shown senior to respondents 2 to 9. On 29.12.73, the respondent - Kerala Public Service Commission, issued an order giving regular promotion to 45 Assistants Grade II as Assistants Grade I. In the order of 29.12.73 respondents 2 to 9 are given the date of promo­tion which is prior to the date of promotion given to the appellant, thus making the appellant junior to respondents 2 to 9. The respond­ents contend that this was done because although the appellant was senior to respondents 2 to 9 in the cadre of Assistants Grade II, her actual date of joining that cadre was later than the actual date of joining of respondents 2 to 9. As a result, respondents 2 to 9 com­pleted their period of probation earlier than the appellant and hence they became eligible for promotion earlier than the appellant. That is why the appellant is shown as junior to respondents 2 to 9 in the cadre of Assistants Grade I.

This contention of the respondents has been upheld by the High Court relying upon a full bench decision of that Court in the case of Verg­hese v. State of Kerala1.

3. The promotion in the present case was dependant entirely upon the seniority of the person concerned in the cadre of Assistants Grade II. The seniority in the cadre of Assistants Grade II was dependant upon the date of advice received from the Public Service Commission, since candidates were directly recruited as Assistants Grade II. This sen­iority did not depend upon the date of completion of probation of the direct recruits so appointed. This is because the date of completion of probation will depend upon other fortuitous circumstances. The date of joining may also depend upon various fortuitous circumstances. Seniority does not depend upon these fortuitous circumstances.

4. Therefore, when promotions are made to the next higher post, the seniormost in the lower cadre will normally be promoted, when promo­tions are by seniority subject to fitness. In the present case, however, when the vacancies were first sought to be filled in the higher post on the 3rd of July, 1973, nobody was eligible because nobody had completed the period of probation. We do not know when the vacancies actually arose. We only have the first date when promotions were made to the existing vacancies provisionally which is 3rd of July, 1973. In the provisional promotion list inter se seniority of Assistants Grade II was preserved.

5. The order for regular promotions was issued on 29.12.73. By this date all eligible persons holding the substantive post of Assistants Grade II were qualified for promotion and were actually provisionally promoted on 3rd of July, 1973. Therefore, their inter se seniority on the date of regular promotion was required to be preserv







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top