2010 Supreme(SC) 341

2010 (3) Supreme 332
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
S. Sumnyan & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Limi Niri & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3512 of 2010
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8510 of 2009]
Decided on : 20-04-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Regularization of the services of a person, whose initial appointment although not in accordance with the prescribed procedure but later on approved by an authority having power and jurisdiction to do so would always relate back to the dates of their initial appointment.

Headnote:Service Law – Arunachal Pradesh Administration [Public Works Department] Group-B Post Recruitment Rules, 1983 - Interse seniority- Appellants were appointed on temporary and ad-hoc basis as Assistant Engineers [Civil] by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the Public Works Department on various dates between the years 1986 and 1988 on the condition that they would be regularized according to Rules on recommendation of a Selection Board constituted by Government- Respondent No. 1 was also appointed on ad-hoc basis in the year 1988 to the post of the Assistant Engineer with a specific condition that he would be regularized according to relevant Rules on the recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission- Sometime in 1989, respondent No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Engineer [Civil] with a condition that he shall be on post on probation for a period of two years and that his appointment shall not commence before 02.05.1989- In the provisional seniority list of Assistant Engineers [Civil] in the Arunachal Pradesh Public Works Department appellants were shown as seniors to respondent no. 1-Writ Petition-Allowed by High Court-Writ Appeal-Dismissed-Appeal- Several seniority lists, although provisional in nature, were published in the meantime, showing that benefit of ad hoc period had been given to the appellants- But these were never challenged by the respondent no. 1 and it was only in the year 2001 when some of them were promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer and one of them to the post of the Chief Engineer that the respondent no. 1 filed said writ petition-High Court without considering said facts only dealt with one aspect which was that initial appointment of appellants to the post of Assistant Engineer was de hors the Rules- Said findings recorded by both the Single Judge as also Division Bench were uncalled for and unjustified for the simple reason that the appointment order itself indicated that their appointment would be governed by the Service Rules then existing,i.e., the 1983 Rules- The fact that their services were regularized from the date of their initial appointment on the recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission was also totally ignored by High Court- Thus, these facts coupled with the fact that none of said orders were challenged by respondent no.1, indicated that said orders were final and binding on all the persons concerned- Again when respondent no. 1 was put on probation, appellant no. 1 and some others had successfully completed their probation- Thus, for all purposes at all times, appellants were senior to respondent no. 1 -No justification for denial of the benefit of seniority to appellants from the date of their initial appointment-Impugned orders passed by Single Judge as well as by Division Bench of High Court set aside-Appeal allowed. (Paras 19 to 28, 37, 38)

       Facts of the Case :

       Present Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by High Court, whereby High Court affirmed the judgment and order of Single Judge allowing writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 and holding that necessary correction be made in the seniority list of the Civil Engineers and recast the same by accepting the date of appointment of respondent No. 1 as on 02.05.1989 and those of appellants from their respective dates of regularization and that ad-hoc period of service rendered by them as Assistant Engineers would not be counted towards their seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer.

       Findings of the Court :

       Several seniority lists, although provisional in nature, were published in the meantime, showing that benefit of ad hoc period had been given to the appellants. But these were never challenged by the respondent no. 1 and it was only in the year 2001 when some of them were promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer and one of them to the post of the Chief Engineer that the respondent no. 1 filed said writ petition.High Court without considering said facts only dealt with one aspect which was that initial appointment of appellants to the post of Assistant Engineer was de hors the Rules. Said findings recorded by both the Single Judge as also Division Bench were uncalled for and unjustified for the simple reason that the appointment order itself indicated that their appointment would be governed by the Service Rules then existing,i.e., the 1983 Rules. The fact that their services were regularized from the date of their initial appointment on the recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission was also totally ignored by High Court. Thus, these facts coupled with the fact that none of aforesaid orders were challenged by the respondent no.1, indicated that said orders were final and binding on all the persons concerned. Respondent no.1 was bound by his own appointment orders.Again when respondent no. 1 was put on probation, appellant no. 1 and some others had successfully completed their probation. Thus, for all purposes at all times, appellants were senior to respondentno. 1.Apart from that respondent no. 1 was inducted into Government service by a separate mode of recruitment than that of appellants and therefore their cases could not be equated.No justification was found for denial of the benefit of seniority to appellants from the date of their initial appointment. Impugned orders passed by Single Judge as well as by Division Bench of High Court were set aside. Appeal was allowed.