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

1987 Supreme(SC) 942

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.
G.C. Gupta and others, Appellants
Versus
N. K. Pandey and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1717 of 1981,
D/- 30-4-1987.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. N. Kacker and Mr. G. L. Sanghi, Sr. Advocates and Mr. R. B. Mehrotra, Advocate with them, for Appellants; Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. K. C. Dua, Mr. A. K. Gupta, Mr. Brij Bhushan, Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Mrs. S. Dikshit, Mr. Pradeep Misra and Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Advocates with him, for Respondents, Mr. S.S. Khanduja, Mr. S. K. Passi, Mr. Yashpal Dhingra and Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, Advocates, for intervenor.

Advocates:
ANIL GUPTA, BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARMA, G.L.SANGHI, GOPAL SUBRAMANIUM, K.C.DUA, PRADIP MISHRA, R.B.MAHATO, S.DIXIT, S.K.Pasi, S.N.KACKAR, S.S.Khanduja, SHANTI BHUSHAN, SUDHIR KULSHRESTHA, URMILA KAPUR, Yashpal Dhingra~

Headnote:

Writ in nature of certiorari quashing - Appeal by special leave arises out of judgment and order passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition by the High Court of Allahabad delivered – While the writ petition was allowed in part a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the gradation or seniority list annexures to the writ petition was directed to be issued – There was a further direction for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party the State Government to prepare a fresh seniority list in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the said judgment, within a period of three months and thereafter to take other consequential steps –Held, In this case the challenge to the seniority of the appellants which was determined by order was made in 197 i.e. after nearly 17 years and they have sought relief for re-determination of the seniority in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Service Rules – This cannot be permitted as it would amount to unjust deprivation of the rights of the appellants which had accrued to them in the meantime – Observation that Every person ought to be entitled to sit back and consider that his appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be set aside after the lapse of a number of years as made in the above case will be applicable to this case – Considering all these aspects it would be just and proper not to give any relief to the respondents on the round of inordinate laches and delay in challenging the seniority list made – Court have already mentioned hereinbefore that at the time of moving the writ petition in 1973 all the appellants had been confirmed as Superintending Engineers in the United Provinces Service of Engineers and the appellants 1 to 3 had been officiating as Additional Chief Engineers – Appeal allowed.

Judgment

RAY, J.:- This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment and order passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1080 of 1973 by the High Court of Allahabad delivered on 6th May, 1981. While the writ petition was allowed in part a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the gradation or seniority list annexures 1, 2 and 28 to the writ petition was directed to be issued. There was a further direction for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 1, the State Government to prepare a fresh seniority list in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the said judgment, within a period of three months and thereafter to take other consequential steps.

2. The crucial question of controversy in this appeal relates to the determination of seniority between the respondents i.e. in writ petition who are all appointed as temporary Assistant Engineers in the United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) and subsequently made permanent therein and the appellants appointed on probation in the permanent posts of Assistant Engineers reserved for toppers of the Thomson College of Civil Engineering later incorporated in Roorkee University and made permanent after expiry of period of probation. The respondents 2 and 3 who passed the final Civil Engineering Examination of Thomson College, Roorkee in 1946 were appointed as temporary and officiating Assistant Engineers by the Chief Engineer subject to final approval of the Government vide CE-P/W/D/C.M. No. 2736 E/8E-1947 dt. 2-6-1947. This provisional appointment as temporary Assistant Engineers was approved by the Government vide G.O. No. 89-EBR/2-1947 dt. 20-2-1948. Thereafter on the advice of the Public Service Commission the Government confirmed their provisional appointment as temporary Assistant Engineers vide G.O. No. 1427/EBR 2 EBR- 1947 dt. 16-10-1948.

3. The petitioners 1 and 4 to 12 passed the final Civil Engineering Examination of the Thomson College, Roorkee in the year 1948. They were appointed by Chief Engineer as temporary Assistant Engineers subject to the final approval of the Government vide Chief Engineer, P.W.D. O. M. dt. 10-8-1949. These appointments were made subject to the final approval of the Government and on their being declared medically fit by the Medical Board. The appointment of these temporary Assistant Engineers was sanctioned by the Government by its order dt. 15-10-1949. These appointments were made in accordance with R. 5(i) of the United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch), Class II Rules, 1936. Thereafter on 20th, Jan., 1950, vide G.O. No. 3968 EBR/2-1949 the Government on the advice of the Public Service Commission confirmed the provisional appointments of the said petitioners as temporary Assistant Engineers in the Buildings and Roads Branch of United Provinces Service of Engineers. The petitioners were examined by the State Medical Board and all of them were declared fit. By Gazette Notification dt. 7-11-1956 the Government was pleased to issue orders of confirmation of the appointment of petitioners 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 as permanent Assistant Engineers in permanent posts, in the cadre of United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch), Class II. By this Notification the Government reserved the right to determine the seniority subsequently. Similarly, the petitioners 5, 6, 9 and 10 were confirmed as permanent Assistant Engineers in permanent posts by Gazette Notification dt. 9-4-1957. The petitioners 11 and 12 were also confirmed as permanent Assistant Engineers in permanent posts in the cadre of United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Class II by Notification dt. 14-5-1958. It is specifically mentioned therein that the Government reserved the right to determine the seniority subsequently. Thus the date of confirmation of the petitioners 1 to 12 as permanent Assistant Engineers in the permanent posts of Assist







































































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