1. Dispute regarding the calculation of seniority in the grade of Superintendent Grade II and subsequent promotions to Grade I under recruitment rules. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
1993 Supreme(SC) 521
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.)
UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE U.T. OF PONDICHERRY
Versus
B. JAYARAMAN AND OTHERS.
Civil Appeal Nos. 4604 to 4609 of 1992 {From the Judgment and Order dated August 22, 1989 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. Nos. 145 to 150 of 1987}, decided on May 13, 1993
Advocates appeared
A.S. Nambiar, Senior Advocate (P.K. Manohar and Ms Shanta Vasudevan, Advocates, with him) for the Appellant; R. Venkataramani, V.G. Pragasam and S.M. Garg, Advocates, for the Respondents.
Important Points
The Court held that counting service in a lower post for promotion eligibility to a higher post does not confer seniority in the intermediate grade. Seniority in a cadre is determined by the length of service rendered within that specific grade, per general principles of service jurisprudence.
Subject
Employment Law - Promotion
Act Referred
RECRUITMENT RULES: Sch.vii
Headnote
Government of Pondicherry (Group C - Non-Gazetted Ministerial Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1981 – Employment and Service matter - Cadre - Seniority - Promotion - Challenged - Petitioners before Tribunal had challenged promotion of respondents 2 to 13 therein who were promoted from Secretarial Assistants to Superintendents Grade II and further promoted as Superintendents Grade I before them in spite of fact that petitioners had already been working as Superintendents Grade II prior to promotion of erstwhile Assistants as Superintendents Grade II - Promotion of respondents before Tribunal was alleged to be based on tentative seniority list wherein respondent 1 had included feeder service rendered by Assistants between for computing seniority in grade of Superintendent Grade II - Plea of petitioners before Tribunal - Tentative seniority lists based on which promotions of respondents 2 to 13 have been made as Superintendents Grade I are based on application of an erroneous principle of determining seniority which is not backed by any statutory provision - That has led to a situation where persons promoted to a higher grade of Superintendent Grade II before Assistants and in which posts they were also confirmed are being placed below respondent 2 onwards -Held, It is thus clear that on general principles of service jurisprudence Assistants having been promoted to grade of Superintendent Grade II after those already working Superintendent Grade II would naturally rank junior to them - Confusion in Government appears to have been created in view of note and proviso occurring in Schedule VII of Rules relating to recruitment to post of Superintendent Grade I - Proviso again is very clear when it says that Superintendents (Non-Secretariat) in service as shall en bloc be seniors to Assistants in service on that date and Superintendents (Non-Secretariat) and Assistants appointed on or after shall rank inter se with reference to dates of appointment in their respective posts - All Superintendents in Grade II who were appointed after would naturally rank in seniority on basis of respective dates of appointment as Superintendent Grade II - It is declared that note in column 11 is only for purposes of giving eligibility to erstwhile Assistants working as Superintendents Grade II for purposes of being considered for promotion to post of Superintendent Grade I and not for purpose of seniority at all - There is no rule of seniority vis-a-vis for (sic) promotees to Superintendent Grade II with effect for calculating seniority and normal rule of service jurisprudence of length of service will apply - Appeals fail and are dismissed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether service rendered in a lower grade should be counted toward seniority in a promoted grade or only for promotion eligibility. (Para 5 )
3. The note in the recruitment rules allowing prior service to count toward the five-year requirement is for eligibility purposes only, not for seniority. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. Eligibility for promotion based on prior service does not equate to seniority in the promoted grade; normal service jurisprudence regarding length of service applies. (Para 10 )
5. Appeals dismissed; the Tribunal's order setting aside promotions and directing seniority based on length of service in the grade is upheld. (Para 11 )
6. Does counting prior service for promotion eligibility automatically grant seniority in the current grade?
No. Provisions that allow prior service to be counted toward the minimum tenure required for promotion eligibility are intended only for determining eligibility and do not affect the seniority ranking within the cadre. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. How is seniority determined when recruitment rules are silent on specific seniority calculations for promotees?
In the absence of a specific statutory rule for calculating seniority, the normal principles of service jurisprudence, specifically the length of service rendered in that grade, shall apply. (Para 10 )
8. What is the legal distinction between eligibility for promotion and seniority in a cadre?
Eligibility refers to the minimum requirements, such as years of service, a candidate must meet to be considered for promotion, whereas seniority determines the relative rank of officials within a specific grade. (Para 9 , 10 )
Judgment
YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.- These six appeals have been filed against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dated August 22, 1989 while disposing of Original Application Nos. 145 to 150 of 1987. Those were filed seriatim by B. Jayaraman; A. Kanakasena Rao; M. Venkatachalam; A. Sherfudeen; K. Viswanathan and P. Madhavan Adiyodi. The respondents in all these six matters before the Tribunal were the same - namely, respondent 1 was Union of India whereas respondents 2 to 13 were the erstwhile Secretarial Assistants promoted as Superintendents Grade II and further promoted as Superintendents Grade I in the Secretariat of the Government of Pondicherry and governed by the Government of Pondicherry (Group C - Non-Gazetted Ministerial Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).
2. The petitioners before the Tribunal had challenged the promotion of respondents 2 to 13 therein who were promoted from Secretarial Assistants to Superintendents Grade II and further promoted as Superintendents Grade I before them in spite of the fact that the petitioners had already been working as Superintendents Grade II prior to the promotion of erstwhile Assistants as Superintendents Grade II. The promotion of respondents before the Tribunal was alleged to be based on tentative seniority list wherein respondent 1 had included the feeder service rendered by the Assistants between January 1, 1973 and July 31, 1981 for computing the seniority in the grade of Superintendent Grade II. The plea of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that from August 1, 1981 respondents 2 to 13 who were Assistants and were in a distinctly lower scale of pay as compared to the applicants, they could not be promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade I before the petitioners. The Tribunal allowed the applications, O.A. Nos. 145 to 150 of 1987 and held:
"It appears to us that there has been some confusion between a liberal provision which has been deliberately made for conferring eligibility for consideration for promotion to the next higher post with reckoning of the period of service rendered in the post of Assistant for the purpose of counting seniority in the post of Superintendent, Grade II. The tentative seniority lists based on which promotions of respondents 2 to 13 have been made as Superintendents Grade I are based on the application of an erroneous principle of determining seniority which is not backed by any statutory provision. That has led to a situation where persons promoted to a higher grade of Superintendent Grade II before the Assistants and in which posts they were also confirmed, are being placed below respondent 2 onwards."
3. The Tribunal accordingly set aside the promotions of respondents 2 to 13 before it contained in various orders of the Government of Pondicherry dated August 7, 1986; August 20, 1986; September 1, 1986 and November 17, 1986. Respondent 1 was further directed to prepare the seniority list in the grade of Superintendent Grade II on the basis of the length of service rendered in that grade and thereafter, all the eligible persons may be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade I and that should include persons like respondents 2 to 13 before it who would get the benefit of service rendered by them as Assistant between January 1, 1973 to November 30, 1981 for determining the period of eligibility and not for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of Superintendent Grade II.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the Union of India had preferred the present appeals.
5. It appears the petitioners before the Tribunal were aggrieved by the grant of benefit of service rendered during the period January 1, 1973 to July 31, 1981 by those who were working in the grade of Assistants towards their seniority in the grade of Superintendent Grade II.
6. For appreciating the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties we may give a statement showing the dates o
