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

2009 Supreme(SC) 537

2009(3) Supreme 45
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam and Aftab Alam, JJ.
State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Javed Iqbal Balwan & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1801 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.4326/2007]
with
Contempt Petition (C) No. 309 of 2007 IN SLP(C) No. 4326 of 2007
Decieded on : 23-03-2009

Advocates appeared:
Altaf H. Naiyak, AG, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Adv., Anis Subrawardy, Ms. Shamama Anis, Ashwani Garg, Mehandi Imam, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Ms. Neelam Singh, Ms. Udita Singh, Vivek Singh, Chandra prakash, Ashok Mathur, H.L. Tiku, Ms. Yashmeet, Ashok K. Mahajan, V.K. Sidharthan, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Direct recruits cannot claim appointment from date of vacancy in quota before their selection.

Headnote:(a) Service Law – Inter se seniority – State Government taking the decision in the light of Court’s order to grant the direct recruits notional seniority without disturbing the earlier promotions as that would have resulted in unsettling positions that were long settled – No infirmity. (Para 19)

        AIR 2000 SC 2386 – Relied upon.

        (b) Service Law – Inter se seniority – Direct recruits cannot claim appointment from date of vacancy in quota before their selection. (Para 21)

       Facts of the case :

        1. Over a period of about twenty four years over a hundred Naib Tahsildars appointed in the year 1973 in the State’s Revenue (Subordinate) Service were inducted into the State’s Revenue (Gazetted) Service as Tahsildars and some of them were even able to pass on into the State’s Administrative Service. They would be given the charge of the superior post initially on ad hoc and temporary basis and in their own scale of pay but later they would be sanctioned the pay scale of the superior post and accorded regular promotion to that post. The State Government would do so either by relaxing or sometimes even by amending or modifying the relevant rules.

        2. This process went on for a very long time amidst numerous orders passed by the J & K High Court in countless writ petitions and internal court appeals filed to challenge the seniority lists of the Naib Tahsildars/Tahsildars issued by the State Government from time to time or to question the actions of the State Government in granting ad hoc and temporary promotions to some from the Naib Tahsildars or in relaxing or amending the relevant rules to facilitate their promotion to the higher service/post.

        3. Even while the disputes relating to inter se seniority of the Naib Tehsildars appeared to be hopelessly mired on the one hand in government orders/actions comprising grant of ad hoc promotions, issuance of circulars and amendment of statutory rules facilitating regularisation of those who were unable to satisfy the conditions of appointment and on the other hand in the litigations before the High Court, a fresh chapter was opened up by induction of direct recruits in various Gazetted services including State’s Revenue (Gazetted) Service.

        4. The impugned direction at serial number XI tends to give to the direct recruits substantive and fully effective seniority from the year 1984. The other directions that follow are consequential to the basic direction at serial number XI.

        5. The appellant, the Government of the State of J & K questions the correctness and validity of the directions of the High Court granting to those candidates who were appointed, pursuant to the Courts’ directions, in the year 1992 substantive seniority with effect from 1984.

       Finding of the Court :

        High Court completely overlooked the decision on the point of antedating the seniority of the direct recruits.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Aftab Alam, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from a dispute of seniority in the cadre of Tahsildars in the J & K Revenue (Gazetted) Service. A dispute of seniority between direct recruits and promotees normally tends to be bitter and thorny. This one is particularly so as it is the product of years of ad-hoc arrangements and it further involved, at least at the stage of the High Court the additional dispute in regard to the date with effect from which the promotee Naib Tahsildars were regularised as Tahsildars. In this appeal, however, on behalf of the State of Jammu and Kashmir we are only concerned with the dispute of seniority between the promotees and the direct recruits in the J & K Revenue (Gazetted) Service. The dispute is now almost a quarter of a century old (the other part, with which we are not concerned in this appeal, of course goes far behind it). During this period of about twenty five years the matter has undergone three rounds of litigations and has seen countless writ petitions and Letters Patent Appeals in the High Court of J & K ending up in appeals, (including the one in hand), before this Court. The first round was in regard to the claim by a number of candidates, who, though finding place in the select list prepared by the State Public Service Commission were denied appointment by the State government. They claimed appointment to the different services under the State government on the basis of their selection by the Commission. On being successful in the first round and on entering the service, some of the direct recruits started the next round claiming what they considered their due seniority on the basis of the vacancies against which their appointments were made. At the end of round two, following the orders of the High Court and this Court, the State Government, gave the direct recruits notional seniority with effect from 1984. This led to the beginning of the third round of litigation in which the direct recruits challenged the government order of their notional seniority and claimed seniority over the Naib Tahsildars who on being promoted as Tahsildars were regularised on those posts with effect from January 1, 1984 allegedly far in excess of their quota in the service and in violation of the statutory rules. In the last round a division bench of the High Court once again grappled with the matter and tried to finally resolve and settle the issue by a long and exhaustive judgment at the end of which the direct recruits were granted almost everything that they prayed for.

3. Before proceeding further it will be useful to state the relevant facts and we propose here to confine to the barest, necessary for disposing of this appeal. On October 8, 1973 the State Government appointed about 118 people as Naib Tahsildars in the State’s Revenue (Subordinate) Service. The appointments were temporary and subject to the express condition that the appointees would pass the departmental examination for Naib Tahsildars conducted by the State’s Public Service Commission within two years (being the period of probation under the relevant rules) failing which they would be liable to be discharged from service. Only a few were able to satisfy the condition but the default stipulation was never invoked in regard to those who were not able to clear the examination. Instead, the period of Probation was extended by one year for about 83 appointees who were unable to pass the examination within the prescribed time. Later on, some of those Naib Tahsildars who were able to pass the departmental examination for Naib Tahsildar also appeared in the examination of Tahsildar held by the J & K Public Service Commission. The result of the examination was published on December 7, 1981 and four Naib Tahsildars who were able to pass the examination were promoted as Tahsildars in the State’s Revenue (Gazetted) Service by order dated February 2, 1982. Later, the govt. retrospectively modified the relevant rules conc

































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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