1995 Supreme(Raj) 917
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
J.R.Chopra, P.K.Palli, JJ.
Shanti Raj Singhvi - Appellant
Versus
C.P. Mathur - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4573 of 1994.
Decided On : 21-07-1995
Advocates:
For the Petitioners:M.R. Singhvi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:M.S. Singhvi, Advocate.
Substantive appointment to a temporary post makes the person a member of the service and that seniority is to be counted from the date of substantive appointment.
Headnote:
RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES - Absorption of Surplus Personnel Rules, 1969 - Rule 15(1) - Seniority of surplus employees - Determination - Substantive appointment of surplus employees in Land and Building Taxes Department - Confirmation - Absorption in Commercial Taxes Department - Seniority - Inter se seniority of surplus employees - Principle.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, directly recruited as Inspectors Gr.II in Commercial Taxes Department in 1977, challenged the seniority list published in 1987 and 1990, which placed respondents, initially appointed as Inspector Trainees in Land and Building Taxes Department in 1973 and later absorbed in Commercial Taxes Department, above them. The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by respondents and directed the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department to redetermine the seniority of respondents by giving them the benefit of substantive services with effect from 1.3.1974. Petitioners contended that respondents' appointment was temporary and they were to rank junior to all Inspectors appointed prior to 27.2.1981, the date of their confirmation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that respondents were appointed as Inspectors Gr.II in Land and Building Taxes Department on a substantive basis with effect from 1.3.1974 and their seniority was to be reckoned from that date. The Court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. M.J. Siddiqui, Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P., and Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India, which held that substantive appointment to a temporary post makes the person a member of the service and that seniority is to be counted from the date of substantive appointment.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents' appointment as Inspectors Gr.II in Land and Building Taxes Department was substantive or temporary? 2. From which date the seniority of respondents was to be reckoned?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that respondents' appointment was substantive and not temporary. It relied on the fact that respondents were selected through a regular process, including written examination, interview, and training, and that their appointments were made against permanent posts, though the department itself was temporary. The Court also noted that the word 'Probation' mentioned in their appointment order was later deleted. 2. The Court held that the seniority of respondents was to be reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment, i.e., 1.3.1974.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision to redetermine the seniority of respondents by giving them the benefit of substantive services with effect from 1.3.1974.
JUDGMENT
1. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment (Annexure-30) dated 31.5.1994 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby while allowing the appeals filed by respondents No. 1 to 17, the learned Tribunal has quashed the impugned seniority lists dated 16.9.1987 and 22.12.1990 and has directed the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (respondent No. 19) to redetermine the seniority of respondents No. 1 to 17 under Rule 15(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1969') by giving them the benefit of the substantive services with effect from 1.3.1974 and to place them above the Commercial Taxes Inspector Gr.II who were appointed after 1.3.1974 with all consequential benefits. It was further directed that if any subsequent orders have been issued in regard to seniority or other service matters on the basis of impugned seniority lists they be revised accordingly and the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department (respondent No. 19) was also directed to apply the same principle to all the similarly situated persons who were absorbed in Commercial Taxes Department from the Land and Building Taxes Department from the post of Inspector Gr.II alongwith respondents No. 1 to 17 so as to avoid further litigation. It was also directed that while carrying out the above directions, the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department shall follow the principle laid down in Rule 15(3) of 1969 Rules i.e. inter se seniority of the all surplus employees in the Land and Building Taxes Department on their appointment on the absorbed post in Commercial Taxes Department shall not be disturbed and where previously such mistake was committed that should be rectified while refixing the seniority of such surplus personnel. A time limit of four months from the date to this order was fixed of carry out the above directions.
2. It may be stated here that against this very judgment, some writ petitions were filed at Jaipur Bench and a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. A.P. Ravani, Acting Chief Justice (as he then was) and Hon'ble Mr. Y.R. Meena, J. dismissed those writ petitions vide its order dated 31.3.1995 (See D.B. Civil Writ Petitions (Defect) Nos. 20/95, 266/95,265/95, 267/95, 268/95, 269/95, 270/95, 271/95, 272/95, 273/95, 274/95, 275/95, 276/95, 277/95, 375/95, 376/95 and 377/95).
3. The facts, necessary to be noticed, for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are : that petitioners No. 1 to 10 were selected as Inspectors Gr. II by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the year 1977 and were appointed as Inspectors Gr. II vide order Annexure-2 dated 19.12.1977. It may be stated here that presently, the petitioners No. 1 to 7 are holding the posts of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officers and petitioners No. 8 to 10 are working as Commercial Taxes Inspectors. These petitioners were confirmed as Inspectors Gr.II vide order (Annexure-3) dated 5.5.1982. According to the petitioners, a seniority list of Commercial Taxes Inspectors was issued on 30.11.1984 and in that list, the names of the petitioners were found mentioned at serial numbers 91, 93, 95, 98, 112, 118, 122, 131 and 142 respectively and the names of respondents No. 1 to 17 were not mentioned in that seniority list. Thereafter, another seniority list was published on 16.9.1987 showing the position as on 1.1.1986 and in that list, the names of the petitioners were shown at serial numbers 92, 94, 96, 99, 114, 120, 124, 133, 134 and 145 respectively whereas the names of respondents No. 1 to 17 were shown at serial numbers 213 to 231 respectively. It is alleged that the final seniority list was published on 22.12.1990 and in that list, the names of the petitioners were shown at serial numbers 58, 60, 62, 63, 80, 86, 91, 99, 100 and 111 respectively whereas the names of respondents No. 1
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
