2010 Supreme(SC) 427

2010 (4) Supreme 154
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Harish Maganlal Baijal — Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. — Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No.6556 of 2008
Decided on : 7-5-2010

Headnote:Service Law-Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation and Seniority) Rules, 1982- Rule 4(2)-Publication of provisional gradation/seniority list of cadre of DSP/Assistant Commissioner of Police (Unarmed) by the Secretary, Home Department, Maharashtra State, in which Petitioner was placed at serial No.238 and Respondent Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8, who were from same batch as Petitioner, were shown at serial nos.200, 201, 202 and 203, - Special Leave Petition filed by petitioner contending that having obtained higher marks than Respondent No.5, he should have been placed at serial No.200 of gradation list instead of the Respondent No.5. – Held no reason was found to interfere with order of Tribunal as affirmed by High Court- Admittedly, out of all 22 vacant posts, first 14 posts were to be filled up by candidates from the open category and remaining 8 vacancies were reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates-The last candidate to be included in the first 14 vacancies had obtained 610 marks, whereas petitioner had obtained 604 marks- In between last candidate and petitioner there were 3 other candidates who had obtained 608, 607 and 605 marks, respectively, so that, in any event, even if 3 ineligible candidates had been excluded from very beginning, petitioner still could not have been included among the first 14 candidates, particularly when one of the ineligible candidates was from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes category- Apart from the above, selection of petitioner along with two other candidates as substituted candidates in place of three ineligible candidates, was under fortuitous circumstances since original selection had already been made and in keeping with the marks obtained by him and his second preference, petitioner had been appointed as Sales Tax Officer,Class-I and he, in fact, joined in said post - Petitioner‘s contention that since both K and he had joined post of DSP on 15.09. 1993, their seniority should have been reckoned from the same day was rightly rejected both by Tribunal and High Court, having regard to fact that while K had been included in the first select list and his appointment was also deferred on account of verification of his Caste Certificate, appointment of petitioner who had already been appointed and was functioning as Sales Tax Officer, Class-I, in the post of DSP, was accidental in view of the ineligibility of three candidates who had been included in the initial list of selected candidates- His claim for seniority could, therefore, be reckoned only from the date of his joining his duties as D.S.P.- Special Leave Petition hence held liable to be dismissed. (Paras 16 to 18)

       Service Law-Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation and Seniority) Rules, 1982- Rule 4(2)- Publication of provisional gradation/seniority list of cadre of DSP/Assistant Commissioner of Police (Unarmed) by the Secretary, Home Department, Maharashtra State, in which Petitioner was placed at serial No.238 and Respondent Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8, who were from same batch as Petitioner, were shown at serial nos.200, 201, 202 and 203, - Special Leave Petition by petitioner contending that he should have been placed above T –Held petitioner’s contention that he should have been placed above T lacked merit,since T was included in the original list from the Schedule Castes category and he was,therefore, entitled to be placed before petitioner in the gradation list from the date of his joining as D.S.P.- The reference made to Rule 4(2) of Rules, 1982, did not also help the petitioner’s case as the same referred to the seniority of recruits selected in one batch- In the petitioner’s case, he was not so selected, but was brought in as a replacement candidate, not from any waiting list, but from the list of successful candidates in the examination held as per the marks obtained by them on the basis of the representation made by him to the Home Minister –Said Rule, hence , had no application in the petitioner’s case despite the fact that successful candidates as well as petitioner were from the same batch- Special Leave Petition hence held liable to be dismissed. (Paras 19 to 21)

       Facts of the Case :

       Provisional gradation/seniority list of cadre of DSP/Assistant Commissioner of Police (Unarmed) was published by the Secretary, Home Department, Maharashtra State, herein in the instant case in which Petitioner was placed at serial No.238 and Respondent Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8, who were from same batch as Petitioner, were shown at serial nos.200, 201, 202 and 203. Present Special Leave Petition has been filed by petitioner contending that having obtained higher marks than Respondent No.5, he should have been placed at serial No.200 of gradation list instead of the Respondent No.5.

       Findings of the Court :

       The Court held that there was no reason was found to interfere with order of Tribunal as affirmed by High Court. Admittedly, out of all 22 vacant posts, first 14 posts were to be filled up by candidates from the open category and remaining 8 vacancies were reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates-The last candidate to be included in the first 14 vacancies had obtained 610 marks, whereas petitioner had obtained 604 marks. In between last candidate and petitioner there were 3 other candidates who had obtained 608, 607 and 605 marks, respectively, so that, in any event, even if 3 ineligible candidates had been excluded from very beginning, petitioner still could not have been included among the first 14 candidates,particularly when one of the ineligible candidates was from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes category. Apart from the above, selection of petitioner along with two other candidates as substituted candidates in place of three ineligible candidates, was under fortuitous circumstances since original selection had already been made and in keeping with the marks obtained by him and his second preference, petitioner had been appointed as Sales Tax Officer,Class-I and he, in fact, joined in said post . Petitioner‘s contention that since both K and he had joined post of DSP on 15.09. 1993, their seniority should have been reckoned from the same day was rightly rejected both by Tribunal and High Court, having regard to fact that while K had been included in the first select list and his appointment was also deferred on account of verification of his Caste Certificate, appointment of petitioner who had already been appointed and was functioning as Sales Tax Officer,Class-I, in the post of DSP, was accidental in view of the ineligibility of three candidates who had been included in the initial list of selected candidates. His claim for seniority could, therefore, be reckoned only from the date of his joining his duties as D.S.P. Even petitioner’s contention that he should have been placed above T lacked merit,since T was included in the original list from the Schedule Castes category and he was,therefore, entitled to be placed before petitioner in the gradation list from the date of his joining as D.S.P. The reference made to Rule 4(2) of Rules, 1982, did not also help the petitioner’s case as the same referred to the seniority of recruits selected in one batch. In the petitioner’s case, he was not so selected, but was brought in as a replacement candidate, not from any waiting list, but from the list of successful candidates in the examination held as per the marks obtained by them on the basis of the representation made by him to the Home Minister .Said Rule, hence , had no application in the petitioner’s case despite the fact that successful candidates as well as petitioner were from the same batch. Special Leave Petition was hence held liable to be dismissed.