2006 Supreme(SC) 533

2006(5) Supreme 147
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Arvinder Singh Bains — Appellant
versus
State of Punjab & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6373 of 2001
Decided on 24-5-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : L.N. Rao, Sr. Advocate, Rishi Malhotra, Prem Malhotra, Advocates.
For the Respondents : M.N. Krishnmani, Ashok Panda, Sr. Advocates, Mrs. Kanwaljit Kochar, D. Jha, Arun K. Sinha, Ms. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, Rajesh K. Sharma, Ms. Shalu Sharma, S.K. Pabbi, Ms. Shikha Roy, Ms. S. Janani, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The seniority under the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) (Class I) Rules, 1976, must be based on a collective interpretation of Rule 18 and Rule 21 of the Rules and action of the authorities in determining seniority of all the members of the PCS (EB) with reference to their date of appointment and not with reference to the order by which they were required to be appointed under Rule 18 is mis-interpretation of Rule 21 of 1976 Rules and is liable to be set aside.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW — Seniority — Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) (Class I) Rules, 1976 — Rules 18 and 21 — Delay on part of Government to appoint direct candidates — Punjab Civil Services — Vacancies that had occurred in interregnum 1978 to 1982 were filled up only in year 1986 — On 1.7.1994, a final seniority list of direct recruits (Register-B) candidates was prepared without assigning their places in the consolidated seniority of the cadre — Writ petitions filed by appellants claiming that seniority would be governed by the serial number of the vacancy and not the date of appointment — High Court dismissed the petition holding that seniority could not be linked to the year of vacancy — Whether action of State in determining seniority in total disregard of rota-quota prescribed in Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules is justified — (No) — Seniority under the 1976 Rules must be based on a collective interpretation of Rules 18 and 21 of the 1976 Rules.

       Held : The action of the authorities is based on the mis-interpretation of the provisions of Rule 21 of 1976-Rules and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The action of the authorities is also contrary to the Register prescribed for purpose of appointment to the PCS. The mandate of the roster is that unless his appointment in the order prescribed under Rule 18, the appointment is invalid. Consequently, the order of appointment must be deemed to be the order prescribed in Rule 18 of the 1976-Rules. The action of the respondents in determining the seniority list without reference to the order consequence of appointment is wholly unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. This apart, the term order of appointment is also being mis-interpreted by the authorities and is being confined to individual order of appointments issued to individual members of service whereas the term of appointment refers only to the order/consequence prescribed under Rule 18. Further, from a perusal of Rule 21 it would be manifestly clear that if it is to be interpreted in the manner in which it is presently being done, namely, to determine the seniority on the basis of the order of appointment i.e. the date on which the order of appointment is issued, the same must necessarily relate to inter se seniority of individual sources of recruitment. This procedure was adopted in preparing the seniority list confined to Register-B. Action of the authorities in determining seniority of all the members of the PCS (EB) with reference to their date of appointment and not with reference to the order by which they were required to be appointed under Rule 18 is mis-interpretation of Rule 21 of 1976-Rules and is liable to be set aside.(Para 54)

       We have also referred to the decisions rendered by this Court. This Court said rota and quota must necessarily be reflected in the seniority list and any seniority list prepared in violation of rota and quota is bound to be negated. The action of the respondents in determining the seniority is clearly in total dis-regard of rota-quota prescribed in Rule 18 of the 1976-Rules. The action is, therefore, clearly contrary to the law laid down by this Court. Thus, we hold :

       1.that the action of the State is contrary to the 1976-Rules;

       2.the seniority under the 1976-Rules must be based on a collective interpretation of Rule 18 and Rule 21 of the 1976-Rules;

       3.the action of the authorities is negative of Rule 18 of the 1976-Rules in determining the seniority by the impugned order. Since the action is contrary to law laid down by this Court, we have no hesitation in allowing the appeal and grant the relief as prayed for by the appellant. (Para 55)

       We, therefore, issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to prepare the seniority list of the appellants who belong to the PCS (EB) in accordance with Rule 18 and read with Rule 21 of the 1976-Rules by fixing seniority according to the roaster prescribed under Rule 18 of the 1976-Rules. Fresh seniority list should be drawn within three months.(Para 56)