Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Girish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4894 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) No. 2784 of 2011)
Decided On : 10-05-2019
(A) Service Law – Promotion – Post of Section Officer – Seniority Rules, 1982 and Recruitment Rules, 1967 both different rules and enacted under different provisions and they operate in different fields – Seniority Rules, 1982 shall govern seniority only and not with respect to recruitment – Recruitment shall be governed by Recruitment Rules, 1967 only – To become eligible for promotional post of Section Officer, a person ought to have rendered continuous service of not less than three years – If any employee is granted deemed date of promotion, his seniority shall be considered accordingly from deemed date of promotion – However, that shall be only for the purpose of inter se seniority only and same shall not be applicable while considering the eligibility criteria under the Recruitment Rules – When respondent no.3 has not completed three years of service for a continuous period of not less than three years in feeder cadre in District Service (Class III) (Ministerial) Grade II, he was not eligible for promotion to post of Section Officer – High Court committed grave error in holding otherwise – Impugned judgments and orders passed by Single Judge as well as Division Bench of High Court quashed and set aside and order passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner restored. [Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982 – Rule 5; Maharashtra Zila Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967] (Paras 8, 9 and 10)
(B) Interpretation of Statute – Rule of Strict Construction – While considering relevant provisions and as per rule of interpretation, when language used is unambiguous, plain and simple, provision is required to be read as it is and nothing is to be added. (Para 9)
Facts of Case:
Question which is posed for consideration before this Court is, whether an employee who has been assigned deemed date of promotion as per Rule 5 of Seniority Rules, 1982 and as such has not actually worked at all on promotional post, can it be said that he has completed service for a continuous period of not less than three years in the feeder cadre, which is the requirement under relevant Recruitment Rules? By impugned judgment, Division Bench of High Court has dismissed letters patent appeal preferred by appellant herein and has confirmed judgment and order passed by Single Judge, original appellant before High Court in Letters Patent Appeal has preferred present appeal.
Findings of Court:
As per Seniority Rules, 1982, seniority of government servants shall be regulated in accordance with provisions of Seniority Rules, 1982. Seniority Rules, 1982 are made applicable to District Service also. Therefore, Seniority Rules, 1982 shall govern seniority only and not with respect to recruitment. Recruitment shall be governed by Recruitment Rules, 1967 only.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad passed in L.P.A. No. 209/2010 in Writ Petition No. 5437 of 2010, by which a Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said letters patent appeal preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the original appellant before the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal has preferred the present appeal.
3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under :
That the appellant herein – Girish Kumar was appointed as Senior Assistant on 26.6.2001. That thereafter he was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent by order dated 12.10.2007, however, with effect from 7.10.2005. One Govind Jerale, appointed as Junior Assistant on 8.9.1994, was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 6.11.1999. Respondent No.3 herein was appointed as Junior Assistant on 29.8.1994. He was suspended from service sometime in the year 1999. His suspension was revoked and he was reinstated on 17.7.2001. That thereafter he was exonerated in departmental enquiry on 15.6.2006. That thereafter he was promoted as Senior Assistant on 1.7.2006. However, in view of the fact that he was exonerated in departmental enquiry, considering Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Seniority Rules, 1982’), Respondent No.3 was granted 6.11.1999 as deemed date of promotion as Senior Assistant, i.e., the date on which his junior Govind Jerale was promoted as Senior Assistant. It appears that thereafter on 22.10.2007, respondent no.3 was promoted as Office Superintendent. The Divisional Commissioner granted to respondent no.3 07.10.2005 as deemed date of promotion as Office Superintendent. As Respondent No.3 was placed in the higher position in the seniority list above the appellant herein, he was consequently promoted as Section Officer by respondent no.2, vide his order dated 1.2.2008.
3.1 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of promotion promoting respondent no.3 herein to the post of Section Officer, the appellant initially preferred writ petition before the High Court. However, the said writ petition came to be disposed of by the High Court with liberty to the appellant to approach the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad for redressal of his grievance. It appears that thereafter the appellant preferred appeal bearing no. DB/Appeal/Cell/7/2009 before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad on 05.11.2008. It was the case on behalf of the appellant that the eligibility criteria as per the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Recruitment Rules, 1967’) for the post of Section Officer was ‘continuous service of not less than three years’ in the grade of Office Superintendent and respondent no.3 never completed his continuous service of not less than three years on the post of Office Superintendent, he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Section Officer. That vide order dated 20.05.2010, the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad allowed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein and quash and set aside the order of promotion of respondent no.3 to the post of Section Officer.
3.2 Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 20.05.2010, respondent no.3 preferred Writ Petition No. 5437 of 2010 before the High Court. That by judgment and order dated 29.06.2010, a learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the said writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 20.05.2010 and consequently confirmed the order of promotion of respondent no.3 dated 1.2.2008.
3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment a
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
