IMPORTANT POINT
The decision rendered by Supreme Court in Shrotriya s case (1998) 3 SCC 397 squarely covers the issue involved in this service matter. High Court materially erred in holding that the ratio in above case was not applicable to the facts of the present case.

Headnote:Service Matter-Whether the appellants who were substantively appointed in different branches of the U.P. Services of Engineers by combined competitive test conducted by the Public Service Commission, U.P. are entitled to the benefit of their services in the said branches though subsequently they appeared in another competitive examination conducted by Public Service Commission, U.P. and were appointed in the Irrigation Department against permanent post by way of transfer? (Yes)-Whether they are also entitled to tagging of the aforesaid service in view of the Government orders? (Yes)-Whether High Court was right in holding that ratio of decision of Shrotriya s case (1998) 3 SCC 397 is not applicable to the facts of present case? (No)-Effect-Appeals allowed.
Held : In our view, the decision rendered by this Court in Shrotriya s case (1998) 3 SCC 397) would squarely cover the issue involved in the matter. Admittedly, appellants were appointed in the year 1968/1969 on the basis of combined competitive examination conducted by the Public Service Commission, U.P on temporary basis on temporary posts. For their regular appointment, they appeared in combined competitive examination conducted by the Public Service Commission, U.P. for the post of Assistant Engineers, Irrigation Department. They were selected in 1971 and were posted in the Irrigation Department as stated above in 1974. The letter dated 21.3.1974 quoted above clearly mentions that on joining Irrigation Department, the services rendered by these officers in PWD and LSGED will be counted towards their services in Irrigation Department. This would be further clear from the G.O. referred to above which specifically provides that "such officers are deemed to have been transferred from one department to another, after the allocation". In view of the letter, G.O. and the office memorandum dated 17.8.1974, the stand taken by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1- State of U.P. is unjustifiable. Further, there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned senior counsel Mr. Markandeya on the basis of the decision in C.G. Desai s case (1974) 1 SCC 188. In the present case, appellants were selected and appointed on a temporary post on temporary basis in 1969. They continued to work on the said post. They were required to appear in the competitive examination in 1971 for being appointed on regular basis which they cleared. Hence, there is no question of their looking for promotion and taking a short cut through direct channels by appearing in examination for direct recruitment. Appellants were in the same cadre holding the posts of Assistant Engineers on temporary basis and were appointed on regular basis in the same cadre on permanent/temporary posts. Further, the High Court materially erred in holding that the ratio of Shrotriya s case was not applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that it was not a case of the appellants that they were selected by the Public Service Commission in the combined test. It appears that the High Court overlooked the documents produced on record which establishes that the Combined Competitive Examination was conducted by the Public Service Commission, U.P. in 1968 and 1971 for recruitment to Government Engineering Service for the post of Assistant Engineers in various departments. Similarly, the letter by which the appellants were posted in the Irrigation Department, specifically reveals that the past services will be counted towards their service in the Irrigation Department. The High Court also materially erred in not referring to the ratio laid down by this Court in Shrotriya s case wherein it is held that a person even appointed on substantive vacancy on a temporary post after due approval by the Public Service Commission if fulfils all other essential criteria as prescribed, he shall be deemed to be born in service from such date of his appointment. In other words his entire length of service from that date should be reckoned in computing seniority." Thereafter this Court held that the services rendered by the appellant in that case should be counted from the year 1962, that is, on the date when he was appointed on a temporary basis. Further, the High Court ought to have considered the G.O. dated 19th October 1968 entirely, which specifically provides that "such officers are deemed to have been transferred from one department to another after the reallocation in accordance with the aforesaid G.O." Thereafter it also provides for fixation of pay in identical scale of pay in that department. It appears that the High Court has overlooked the first part which provides that such officers are transferred from one department to another. If the High Court had referred to paragraph 13 of Shrotriya s case (supra), it would have been clear that the stand and the policy of the State Government was also to the effect that appellant s services were required to be counted for the purpose of seniority. Hence, these appeals are required to be allowed. The respondent-Government is directed to fix the seniority of the appellants in the light of the above findings. While re-fixing seniority, if any person is affected, it shall fix the seniority after giving an opportunity to the person concerned. Consequent promotions and benefits flowing thereunder will also be granted to the appellants, if they are otherwise eligible. In the result, the appeals are allowed accordingly and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in the writ petitions filed by the appellants is quashed and set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 10, 11, 12 & 13)

JUDGMENT

Shah, J.-Leave granted.

2. Question involved in these matters is - whether the appellants who were substantively appointed in different branches of the U.P. Services of Engineers by Combined Competitive Test conducted by the Public Service Commission, U.P. are entitled to the benefit of their services in the said branches though subsequently they appeared in another competitive examination conducted by Public Service Commission, U.P. and were appointed in the Irrigation Department against permanent post by way of transfer? And also whether they are entitled to tagging of the aforesaid service in view of the Government orders?

3. By a common judgment and order dated 24.4.2000, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow dismissed the writ petition Nos.1219 (SB) and 1220 (SB) of 1998 filed by the appellants herein by holding that (1) the ratio of decision in Vijaya Kumar Shrotriya v. State of U.P. & Ors.1 is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that it is not the case of the appellants that they were selected by the Public Service Commission in a combined test. There is nothing on record to indicate that their examination or interviews were held for the combined services of U.P. for the post of Assistant Engineers either in LSGED, PWD or in the Irrigation Department by the U.P. Public Service Commission and they were initially appointed in the Irrigation Department; (2) the appellants never opted to be appointed in the Irrigation Department and they never insisted to be relieved from service in which they were initially appointed. There is nothing on record to show that inspite of their insistence or option, the department ever refused to relieve the appellants from the department in which they were initially appointed; (3) observations of this Court in Shrotriya s case (supra) were in respect of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant was selected in the combined services of U.P. for the post of Assistant Engineer in the PWD and Irrigation Department by the U.P. Public Services Commission and he was allotted to P.W.D. His appointment was approved by the P.W.D. Chief Engineer, P.W.D. issued letter of his appointment, but he was not relieved by the Irrigation Department inspite of his consent to join the P.W.D.; and (4) in the present case, the services of the appellants were transferred to Irrigation Department after their selection by the Public Service Commission held in 1971. In pursuance of their selection, appointment order was issued in 1974. The order does not show any benefit for the purposes of seniority. But the only benefit given was for the purposes of fixation of the last pay drawn in the salary.

4. At the time of hearing of these matters, learned senior counsel Mr. Dwivedi, appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the impugned order passed by the High Court is contrary to the decision of this Court in Shrotriya s case (supra) and also to the facts which are brought on record. It has been pointed out that the appellant Vinod Kumar Sharma (in SLP No. 10335/2000) was appointed in the department of Community Development (Minor Irrigation) in the year 1969 as he cleared Combined Competitive Examination held in that year. For this purpose, he has relied upon the letter dated 8.8.1969 (Annexure-P3) which reveals that on the basis of the results of the Combined Competitive Engineering Services Examination held by the Public Service Commission, U.P. in the year 1968, the persons named therein were appointed against the regular temporary posts of Assistant Engineers on temporary basis, which includes the name of appellant Vinod Kumar Sharma. Annexure-P2 is the list published by Lok Seva Ayog (Public Service Commission), U.P., which also includes the name of appellant Vinod Kumar Sharma at Serial No. 64. It has been pointed out that the Combined Competitive Examination was held by the Public Service Commission for the four departments

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 650

IMPORTANT POINTThe decision rendered by Supreme Court in Shrotriya s case (1998) 3 SCC 397 squarely covers the issue involved in this service matter. High Court materially erred in holding that the ratio in above case was not applicable to the facts of the present case.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
The decision rendered by Supreme Court in Shrotriya s case (1998) 3 SCC 397 squarely covers the issue involved in this service matter. High Court materially erred in holding that the ratio in above case was not applicable to the facts of the present case.