IMPORTANT POINT
When appointment letter prescribes a procedure for reckoning seniority, the incumbent cannot claim otherwise in absence of challenge to the terms of the appointment letter.

JUDGMENT

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.

The Bihar State Subordinate Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'BSSSB') issued an advertisement on 10.09.1981 advertising posts of Assistant Probation Officers, Labour Inspectors, Investigators and Industrial Extension Officers, all belonging to Class-III service. Before initiating the process of selection in furtherance of the advertisement dated 10.09.1981, the BSSSB issued another advertisement on 26.12.1981 advertising the posts of Senior Auditor, Block Statistics Supervisors, Enumerators in the Industries Department, Commercial Tax Inspectors, Welfare Inspectors and Industrial Extension Officers, all these posts were also in Class-III service.

A combined written test was held on 1.3.1982, for selection to the posts advertised on 10.09.1981 and 26.12.1981. A joint result of the aforesaid test, was published on 11.3.1983. The appellants before this Court came to be appointed as Supply Inspectors in the Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Bihar on 14.11.1983. The appellants were amongst 138 appointments initially made on 14.11.1983.

The private respondents before this Court were appointed much later on 10.02.1986, as Assistant Consolidation Officers, in the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar. At this juncture, it would be essential to notice, that the delayed appointment of the private respondents was on account of an acknowledged mistake, committed by the BSSSB. The delayed appointment of the private respondents cannot be attributed to their lower position in the merit list. As a matter of fact, it is not disputed, that the private respondents appointed on 10.02.1986, from out of the same process of selection, were placed at positions above the appellants in the merit list. It is in the above view of the matter, that learned counsel for the appellants very fairly states, that he has no objection to the acceptance of the proposition, that the private respondents may be deemed to have been appointed on the same date as the appellants, namely, on 14.11.1983. In the above view of the matter, we shall proceed with the assumption, that the private respondents, as well as the appellants, were appointed to their respective posts, in their respective departments on the same day, i.e., 14.11.1983. After the appointments of the appellants, they continued to discharge their duties as Supply Inspectors in the Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Bihar, whereas the private respondents continued to discharge their duties as Assistant Consolidation Officers in the Revenue and Land Reforms Department. Both the aforesaid posts admittedly belong to independent cadres in independent departments.

It seems that during 1995, the State Government decided to suspend a part of the consolidation activities in the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, as such, the private respondents would have been rendered surplus from the Revenue and Land Reforms Department. In order to accommodate 101 surplus Assistant Consolidation Officers of the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, a common order dated 21.4.1995 was issued. The text of the aforesaid order reveals, that the private respondents “...were appointed temporarily on adjustment basis, on the posts of Supply Inspectors, carrying the scale of Rs.1600-50-2780, under the Administrative Control of the Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Bihar, from the date of their joining on the posts...”. For the present controversy, paragraph 4 of the letter of appointment dated 21.4.1995 is relevant, and is being extracted hereunder:

“4. The inter-se seniority of Supply Inspectors in the department shall be determined later.” In a similar fashion, as has been expressed hereinabove, on 31.12.1996, 86 Assistant Consolidation Officers who were likewise declared surplus, “...were appointed temporarily on adjustment basis, on the posts of Supply Inspectors, carrying the scale of Rs.1600-50-2780, under the Administrative Control of the Food, Supply and Commerce Department,