Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1112

2009(5) Supreme 55
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
Tarun Chatterjee and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
M.P. Palanisamy & Ors. — Appellants
versus
A. Krishnan & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3582-84 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 1128-1130 of 2005)
with
Civil Appeal Nos. 3585-86 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 7621-7622 of 2005)
Decided on : 15-05-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) ; Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram (NP), Ms. Indu Malhotra (NP), M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advs., Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Vikas Mehta, K.V. Mohan, K.V. Balakrishnan, Advocates.
For the Respondent(s):C. Selvaraju, R. Viduthalai, Sr. Advs., Ms. Mary Mitzy, Deepak Jain, Gopal singh Chauhan, Shiv Prakash Pandey, Ms. Promila, Ms. Indira, S. Thanajayan, Senthil Jagadeesan, T. Raja, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Period of ad hoc appointment cannot be reckoned for fixing seniority.

Headnote:(a) Service Law – Regularization – When an employee accepts conditional regularization, he accepts the conditions also. (Para 19)
        (b) Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 – Delay and latches – Sinister silence for six years in spite of adverse judgments goes against the appellant. (Para 20)
        (c) Service Law – Seniority – Appointees on ad hoc basis and those through PSC – Ad hoc appointees not taking any competition – They even desisted form taking the examination even though expressly required – They were rightly placed below the teachers appointed by PSC. (Para 21)
        (d) Service Law – Ad hoc appointees, not being member of the service, cannot expect regularization straightway. (Para 21)
        (e) Service Law – Seniority – Ad hoc appointees, appointed without taking any examination under PSC or undergoing any recruitment process and facing general competition from the other candidates were not members of the service – Hence they cannot claim seniority over those properly appointed – Mere subsequent regularization does not confer any right to the ad-hoc appointees to claim seniority over those who were already in service. (Para 21)
        (f) Service Law – Seniority – Period of ad hoc appointment cannot be reckoned for fixing seniority. (Para 26)
        1992 Supp. (1) SCC 420; (2006)6 SCC 558; 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 572 – Relied upon.
        (1999) 8 SCC 287; (2005) 7 SCC 627; (1982)3 SCC 341 – Distinguished.
       Facts of the case :
        1. Seniority of teachers of different categories is the subject matter of these appeals.
        2. All these cases concern inter se seniority of the higher secondary school teachers called Post Graduate Assistants who were appointed from the year 1978.
       Finding of the Court :
        There is no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the High Court.
       Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—

1. Leave granted in all the cases.

2. This judgment shall govern SLP (C) Nos. 1128-1130 of 2005 and SLP (C) Nos. 7621-7622 of 2005. All the appellants herein challenge the judgment of the Madras High Court whereby the Writ Petitions filed by them were disposed of with the following direction:-

“As regards the first category of teachers, those appointed between 01.07.1978 to 28.04.1981, their seniority from will be reckoned from the date on which they acquire the required qualification, provided they do so within such time as extended by the Government and subject to the concurrence of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.

As regards the second category of teachers, those appointed after 28.04.1981 and selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission their seniority will be fixed as per the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission list.

As regards the third category of teachers, those appointed after 28.04.1981 and who have not been selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and whose services have been regularized by GOMs No. 1813 dated 12.12.1988, their seniority will commence immediately after the last person in the list in the second category.

However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no orders as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

3. This judgment disposed of Writ Petition Nos. 21163-64/2003, 21347/2003, 21640/2003, 21641/2003 and 29075-77/2003. One another Writ Petition filed along with these was, however, ordered to be de-linked. All these Writ Petitions involved the question of inter se seniority of the higher secondary school teachers called Post Graduate Assistants (hereinafter referred to as “P.G. Assistants” for short) who were appointed from the year 1978.

4. The relevant G.O.Ms. No. 1813, Education Department dated 12.12.1988 was challenged in all these Writ Petitions in so far as it pertained to the fixation of seniority as shown in clause (ii) therein for the sake of clarity it will be better to quote the said G.O.Ms:

“The said posts of teachers have been excluded from the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission with reference to the orders issued in the G.O. Ms. Nos. 139 and 1320, Education Department dated 17.8.1987. Recently a separate Teachers Recruitment Board has been constituted for recruitment of teachers to the schools. In the circumstances, the Government direct that the services of the fully qualified P.G. Assistant in Academic subjects, Languages and Physical Directors who were appointed temporarily under the provisions of the Rule 10(a)(i) and who are in service till date shall be regularized from the date of their temporary appointment and subject to the following conditions:

(i) The candidates regularized by this order will get monetary benefits from the date of issue of this order.

(ii) They will be placed below the candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission while ranking their seniority i.e. these candidates will take their seniority below the last candidate selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Commission for the year.”

5. Ms. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants along with Ms. Indu Malhotra and Shri M.N. Krishnamani, learned Senior Counsel assailed the judgment mainly on the question that the directions given by the High Court were in breach of the basic principles of service jurisprudence to the effect that the persons entering into the service first have to be conferred with the seniority from the date of entering into the service, particularly, when the service is regularized. In other words, the learned counsel urged that the seniority of the petitioners must be reckoned form the date they entered into the service even if they were regularized later on as compared to the others.

6. Before approaching this question it will be necessary to see in short the uncontroverted facts.

7. The concerned teachers in these appeals can be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1112

IMPORTANT POINT Period of ad hoc appointment cannot be reckoned for fixing seniority.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
Period of ad hoc appointment cannot be reckoned for fixing seniority.