SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(Ker) 231

Judges : MR T.C.RAGHAVAN,P.UNNIKRISHNA KURUP
P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI - Appellant
Versus
ACCOUNTANT GENERAL AND OTHERS - Respondent
Case No : W. A. No. 969, 971, 1012 of 1969, 22, 23 of 1970
Decided On : 11/19/1971
Advocates Appeared :
G. Viswanatha Iyer; K. Sreedharan; K. N. Devadathan; For Appellants George Vadakkel; For Respondents

For Selection Grade posts, 'merit-cum-seniority' means comparative merit, not seniority-cum-fitness.

Headnote:

Selection Grade Posts - Promotion - Para.224 of the Manual of Standing Orders - Interpretation of 'merit-cum-seniority' - Relevant Supreme Court decisions - Confirmation of Single Judge's decisions

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, Upper Division Clerks, challenged their non-selection for Senior Grade posts regulated by Para.224 of the Manual. The Accountant General constituted a Departmental Selection Committee for the selection based on merit, not seniority. The appellants argued that the reconstructed Para.224 made the posts non-Selection Grade, requiring promotion based on seniority and fitness.

Finding of the Court:

The Court analyzed the meaning of 'merit-cum-seniority' and considered relevant Supreme Court decisions. It concluded that for Selection Grade posts, 'merit-cum-seniority' means comparative merit, not seniority-cum-fitness. The Single Judge's decisions were confirmed, and the appeals were dismissed.

Issues: Interpretation of 'merit-cum-seniority' in the context of Selection Grade posts

Ratio Decidendi: For Selection Grade posts, 'merit-cum-seniority' means comparative merit, not seniority-cum-fitness.

Final Decision: The decisions of the Single Judge were confirmed, and the appeals were dismissed without costs.

Judgment :-

1. The appellants in these writ appeals were Upper Division Clerks in the Office of the Accountant General. Twenty per cent of the posts of Division Clerks were placed in the Senior Grade; and promotion to those posts was regulated by Para.224 of the Manual of Standing Orders relating to that Office. There was a Commission of Enquiry on Emoluments and Conditions of Service of the Central Government Employees; and the Commission made certain recommendations in 1959. Ultimately, Para.224 of the Manual was reconstructed. Ex. P6 in one of the writ petitions giving rise to these appeals gives the original Para.224 and Para.224A and 224B, while Ex P7 gives the reconstructed Para.224. The Accountant General, the Head of the Office, and two senior officers, the Deputy Accountant General and the Deputy Controller of Accounts, were constituted a Departmental Selection Committee; and the Committee made the selection to these up-graded posts, wherein the appellants were not selected, since the selection was based on merit and not on mere seniority: others junior to the appellants were selected. The appellants filed writ petitions before this Court questioning the selection; and a learned judge has dismissed the writ petitions.

2. The first respondent, the Accountant General, has filed counter affidavits in the writ petitions, wherein he has averred that these Senior Grade posts were Selection Grade posts and that the promotion thereto was by selection on the basis of merit, seniority being counted only for the purpose of ranking the persons selected. He has also averred that, in making the selection, factors like integrity, aptitude, etc. were also taken into account, in view of the fact that the Selection Grade Clerks are to be entrusted with duties of a more responsible nature. It is further averred that the reconstruction of Para.224 of the Manual has not effected any change in the position that existed previously.

3. The counsel of the appellants have concentrated on the meaning of the expression'merit-cum-seniority' obtaining in the reconstructed Para.224-It is admitted by the counsel that these posts were Selection Grade posts under Para.224 as it originally stood, because Para.224A and B indicate unequivocally that the selection should be by a Departmental Promotion Committee basing on merit. The entire argument, as already indicated, is that, under the reconstructed Para.224, these posts became non-Selection Grade posts, so that promotion to these posts should be on the basis of seniority and fitness of the personal to hold the posts.

4. One of the counsel of the appellants has drawn our attention to Para.10 of Chapter X of the Pay Commission Report, which says that, with the object of providing incentive to the employees who have no outlets or very limited outlets for promotion to higher posts, a recommendation is made that a certain percentage of the posts in the grade should carry a somewhat higher scale of pay, even though there will be no change in the duties, and that, following the terminology in vogue, these posts will be described as Selection Grade Posts. The argument is that the reconstruction of Para.224 was in consequence of this direction of the Pay Commission, so that these posts became non-Selection Grade Posts, after the said reconstruction.

5. If the intention of the reconstruction of Para.224 was to make the posts, which were Selection Grade posts, non-Selection Grade posts, the language of the reconstructed paragraph would have been different; it would have been made clear that the purpose was to make the posts non-Selection Grade posts. The language, as will presently appear, is not so clear: on, the other hand, it indicates that the posts still remained Selection Grade posts. The relevant portion of the reconstructed Para.224 reads:

"The cadre of Upper Division Clerks in each office has Selection Grade limited to 10 per cent of the strength of the cadre (now it is 20 per cent) Promotions to the Selecti
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top