Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Mohammad Rafiq, CJ, Rajeev Kumar Dubey and Vijay Kumar Shukla, JJ.
Arun Parmar v. State of M. P. & Others
Writ PetitionsNo. 1539 of 2018, 1541 of 2018, 1712 of 2018
2644 of 2018, 3706 of 2018, 3716 of 2018 and 16735 of 2018 (Jabalpur); Decided on22.4.2021
(1) Civil Services(General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (M.P.) -- R.3 -- M.P. State Administrative Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975 -- R.3 --applicability -- R. 3 of Rules of 1961 shall apply not only to member of service in State but also to every person who holds a post (with exceptions) -- use of 'or' is disjunctive -- Rules of 1975 would govern conditionsof service of members of Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Services but without prejudice to generality of Rules of 1961 -- Rules of 1961 shall continue to apply except insofar as special provisions have been made in Rules of 1975 -- therefore, it continues to be applicable to those who hold a post. [Para 17]
(2) Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (M.P.) -- Rr. 8, 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (f) -- M. P. State Administrative Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975 -- R. 13 -- no material difference between R. 8 of Rules of 1961 and R. 13 of Rules of 1975 -- probationers not able to pass departmental examination even during extended period of probation -- yet appointing authority/Government, despite specific power under R. 8 (5) of Rulesof 1961 and/or under R. 13 (5) of Rules of 1975 to terminate their services, consciously allowed them to continue in service -- sub-rule (7)of both set of Rules would come into play -- they continue to be eligible -- entitled to appear in departmental examination -- on clearing such examination, entitled to be confirmed -- Full Bench only considered R. 8 of Rules of1961 and not R. 13 of Rules of 1975 -- non consideration does not in any manner affect correctness of conclusion -- R. 23 of Rules of1975 itself specifically provides that seniority of persons shall be regulated in accordance with R.12 of Rules of 1961. 2012 (I) MPJR (FB) 375 concurred with. [Paras 18 & 19]
(3) Precedent -- judgment can berelied upon for proposition of law that it actually decided -- not for what can be logically deduced from it -- difference of minor fact would make a lot of change in precedential value. (1901) AC 495 referred to. [Para 26]
(4) Interpretation of Statute -- harmonious construction -- different parts of a section of rule have to be harmoniously construed so as to give effect to purpose of legislation and intention of Legislature. (2002) 2 SCC 95, AIR 1954 SC 202 and AIR 1962 SC 1543 followed. Masood Akhtar (Dr.) 2012 (I) MPJR (FB) 375 referred to. [Para 27]
(5) Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (M.P.) -- R.12 (1) (a) -- M.P. State Administrative Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975 -- R.13 -- applicability of R.12 (1) (a) to seniority of probationers who have not qualified departmental examination within period of probation or within extended period of probation -- employee directly recruited with reference to R. 8(1) of Rules of 1961 or R. 13(1) of Rules of 1975 -- unable to qualify departmental examination even within extended period of probation -- yet not discharged from service by appointing authority at end of period of probation despite having power to do so -- his service conditions would be governed by Rules of 1960 -- however, this situation would continue only for interregnum period till he qualifies departmental examination -- person falling in this category asper R. 8(1) of Rules of 1961 continues to be "a person appointed to a service or post by direct recruitment" or as per R. 13(1) of Rules of 1975, as "every person directly recruited to the service" -- he is eventually confirmed when he passes departmental examination -- continues to work on same post on which he was initially appointed -- continues to draw pay against such post -- question of his needing to retain any lien would not arise -- he shall continue to be entitled to appear in departmental examination even thereafter -- upon passing, shall be confirmed in service -- if and when he would qualify such examination and is confirmed, hewould become member of service with reference to his original appointment -- would be continued in service -- consequently, would be assigned seniority below his batchmates who have earlier qualified departmental examination -- once such employee has passed departmental examination, he would cease to be subject to Rules of 1960 -- would be governed from that stage onward by Rules of 1961and/or Rules of 1975, as case may be -- even otherwise, there is no provision in Rules of 1960 with regard to fixation and regulation of seniority of employees falling in this category. 2012 (I) MPJR (FB) 375 concurred with. (1990) 2 SCC 715 and (1999) 8 SCC 287 followed. (1996) 11 SCC 173, (2000) 10 SCC77 and (2005) 11 SCC 488 distinguished. (2015) 8 SCC 399, (1989) 3 SCC 211, (2017) 13 SCC 836 and (1992) 3 SCC 293 discussed. 2020 (3) JLJ 1 (SC), (1984) 4 SCC 329, (2009) 13 SCC 165, (2017) 1 SCC 283, (2002) 1 SCC 1, (2004) 5 SCC 518, (2005) 2 SCC 673, Writ Appeal No. 1267 of 2007 decided on 25.3.2009, Writ Appeal No. 510 of 2009 decided on 17.12.2009 and Writ Appeal No. 607 of 2011 decided on 22.9.2011 referred to. [Paras 28 & 31]
¼1½ flfoy lsok ¼lsok dh lkekU; 'krsZ½ fu;e] 1961 ¼eŒçŒ½ & fuŒ3 & eŒçŒ jkT; ç'kklfud lsok ¼oxÊdj.k] ÒrÊ rFkk lsok 'krsZ½ fu;e] 1975 & fuŒ3 & ykxw g¨uk & lu~ 1961 d¢ fu;e¨a dk fuŒ3 jkT; esa lsok d¢ lnL; d¨ gh ugha vfirq in èkkj.k djus okys çR;sd O;fDr d¨ Òh ykxw g¨xk ¼viokn¨a lfgr½ & ^;k^ dk mi;¨x fo;¨td gS & lu~ 1975 d¢ fu;e¨a ls eè; çns'k jkT; ç'kklfud lsok d¢ lnL;¨a dh lsok dh 'krsZ fofu;fer g¨xh ijarq lu~ 1961 d¢ fu;e¨a dh O;kidrk ij çfrdwy çÒko Mkys fcuk & lu~ 1961 d¢ fu;e ykxw jgsaxs] flok; ogka tgka lu~ 1975 d¢ fu;e¨a esa fo'ks"k micaèk fd, x, gSa & vr% ;g mUgsa ykxw jgsxk t¨ in èkkj.k djrs gSaA ¼iSjk 17½
¼2½ flfoy lsok ¼lsok dh lkekU; 'krsZ½ fu;e] 1961 ¼eŒçŒ½ & fuŒ8] 12¼1½¼d½ rFkk 12¼1½¼p½ & eŒçŒ jkT; ç'kklfud lsok ¼oxÊdj.k] ÒrÊ rFkk lsok 'krsZ½ fu;e] 1975 & fuŒ13 & lu~ 1961 d¢ fu;e¨a d¢ fuŒ8 v©j lu~ 1975 d¢ fu;e¨a d¢ fuŒ13 d¢ eè; d¨Ã rkfRod varj ugha & ifjoh{kkèkhu O;fDr ifjoh{kk dh foLrkfjr vofèk esa Òh foÒkxh; ijh{kk mÙkh.kZ ugha dj ld¢ & fQj Òh fu;qfDr çkfèkdkjh@ljdkj us] lu~ 1961 d¢ fu;e¨a d¢ fuŒ8¼5½ d¢ vèkhu d¢ vèkhu rFkk@;k lu~ 1975 d¢ fu;e¨a d¢ fuŒ13¼5½ d¢ vèkhu mudh lsok lekIr djus dh fofufnZ"V 'kfDr d¢ ckotwn] mUgsa tkucw> dj lsok esa cus jgus fn;k & fu;e¨a d¢ n¨u¨a leqPp;¨a dk mifu;e ¼7½ ço`fÙk g¨ tk,xk & og ik= cus jgrs gSa & foÒkxh; ijh{kk esa cSBus d¢ gdnkj & ,slh ijh{kk mÙkh.kZ djus ij iqf"V d¢ gdnkj & iw.kZ U;k;ihB us d¢oy lu~ 1961 d¢ fu;e¨a d¢ fuŒ8 ij fopkj fd;k] lu~ 1975 d¢ fu;e¨a d¢ fuŒ13 ij ugha & fopkj ugha fd, tkus ls fu"d"kZ dh 'kq)rk fdlh çdkj çÒkfor ugha g¨rh & lu~ 1975 d¢ fu;e¨a d¢ fuŒ23 esa gh fofufnZ"Vr% micafèkr gS fd O;fDr;¨a dh T;s"Brk lu~ 1961 d¢ fu;e¨a d¢ fuŒ12 vuqlkj fofu;fer g¨xhA 2012 ¼1½ ,e ih ts vkj 375 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ ls lgerA ¼iSjk 18 ,oa 19½
¼3½ iwoZ fu.kZ; & fu.kZ; dk voyac fofèk dh mlh çfriknuk d¢ fy, fy;k tk ldrk gS ftls og okLro esa fofuf'pr djrk gS & mld¢ fy, ugha t¨ mlls rdZiwoZd fudkyh tk ldrh gS & x©.k rF; d¢ varj ls iwoZ fu.kZ; d¢ :i esa mld¢ ewY; esa cgqr cM+k varj vk tk,xkA ¼1901½ , lh 495 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 26½
¼4½ fofèk dk fuoZpu & lkeatL;iw.kZ vFkkZUo;u & fu;e d¢ va'k fofÒUu Òkx¨a dk lkeatL;iw.kZ vFkkZUo;u fd;k tkuk g¨rk gS rkfd foèkku dk ç;¨tu v©j foèkku eaMy dk vk'k; çÒkoh g¨A ¼2002½ 2 ,l lh lh 95] , vkb vkj 1954 ,l lh 202 rFkk , vkb vkj 1962 ,l lh 1543 vuqlfjrA 2012 ¼1½ ,e ih ts vkj 375 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 27½
¼5½ flfoy lsok ¼lsok dh lkekU; 'krsZ½ fu;e] 1961 ¼eŒçŒ½ & fuŒ12¼1½¼d½ & eŒçŒ jkT; ç'kklfud lsok ¼oxÊdj.k] ÒrÊ rFkk lsok 'krsZ½ fu;e] 1975 & fuŒ3 & fuŒ12¼1½¼d½ mu ifjoh{kkèkhu O;fDr;¨a dh T;s"Brk d¨ ykxw g¨uk ftUg¨aus foÒkxh; ijh{kk dh vgZrk ifjoh{kk dh vofèk d¢ Òhrj çkIr ugha dh & lu~ 1961 d¢ fu;e¨a d¢ fuŒ8¼1½ ;k lu~ 1975 d¢ fu;e¨a d¢ fuŒ13¼1½ d¢ lanÒZ esa lhèks ÒrÊ fd;k x;k deZpkjh & ifjoh{kk dh foLrkfjr vofèk d¢ Òhrj Òh foÒkxh; ijh{kk dh vgZrk çkIr djus esa vleFkZ & fQj Òh ifjoh{kk dh vofèk dk volku g¨us ij fu;qfDr çkfèkdkjh }kjk] ,slk djus dh 'kfDr g¨us d¢ ckotwn] lsokUeqDr ugha fd;k x;k & mldh lsok dh 'krsZ lu~ 1960 d¢ fu;e¨a }kjk fofu;fer g¨axh & rFkkfi] ;g ifjfLFkfr mld¢ }kjk foÒkxh; ijh{kk dh vgZrk çkIr djus rd dh vardkZy vofèk d¢ fy, gh tkjh jgsxh & bl oxZ esa vkus okyk O;fDr lu~ 1961 d¢ fu;e¨a d¢ fuŒ8¼1½ d¢ vuqlkj ^^fdlh lsok ;k in ij lhèkh Òjrh }kjk fu;qDr O;fDr^^ ;k lu~ 1975 d¢ fu;e¨a d¢ fuŒ13¼1½ d¢ vuqlkj ^^lsok esa lhèks gh Òjrh fd;k x;k çR;sd O;fä^^ cuk jgrk gS & foÒkxh; ijh{kk mÙkh.kZ djus ij varr¨xRok mldh iqf"V g¨rh gS & mlh in ij dk;Z djrk jgrk gS ftl in ij mls vkjaÒ esa fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk & ,sls in dk osru ysrk jgrk gS & mld¢ }kjk d¨Ã èkkj.kkfèkdkj çfrèkkfjr fd, tkus dh vko';drk dk ç'u mn~Òwr ugha g¨xk & og rRi'pkr~ Òh foÒkxh; ijh{kk esa cSBus dk gdnkj cuk jgsxk & mÙkh.kZ g¨us ij lsok esa iqf"V dh tk,xh & tSls gh og ,slh ijh{kk esa vgZrk çkIr djrk gS v©j mldh iqf"V g¨rh gS] og viuh ewy fu;qfDr d¢ lanÒZ esa lsok dk lnL; cu tk,xk & lsok esa dk;e j[kk tk,xk & ifj.kkeLo:i] mls mld¢ mu lgdfeZ;¨a ls uhps T;s"Brk nh tk,xh ftUg¨aus foÒkxh; ijh{kk dh vgZrk iwoZ esa çkIr dj yh gS & ,slk deZpkjh foÒkxh; ijh{kk mÙkh.kZ dj ys] r¨ og lu~ 1960 d¢ fu;e¨a d¢ vè;èkhu ugha jgsxk & ml çØe ls] ;FkkfLFkfr] lu~ 1961 d¢ fu;e¨a rFkk@;k lu~ 1975 d¢ fu;e¨a ls fofu;fer g¨xk & vU;Fkk Òh] bl oxZ esa vkus okys deZpkfj;¨a dh T;s"Brk d¢ fu;ru v©j fofu;eu d¢ ckjs esa lu~ 1960 d¢ fu;e¨a esa d¨Ã miycaèk ugha gSA 2012 ¼1½ ,e ih ts vkj 375 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ ls lgerA ¼1990½ 2 ,l lh lh 715 rFkk ¼1999½ 9 ,l lh lh 287 vuqlfjrA ¼1996½ 11 ,l lh lh 173] ¼2000½ 10 ,l lh lh 77 rFkk ¼2005½ 11 ,l lh lh 488 çÒsfnrA ¼2015½ 8 ,l lh lh 399] ¼1989½ 3 ,l lh lh 211] ¼2017½ 13 ,l lh lh 836 rFkk ¼1992½ 3 ,l lh lh 293 foosfprA 2020 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 1 ¼,l lh½] ¼1984½ 4 ,l lh lh 329] ¼2009½ 13 ,l lh lh 165] ¼2017½ 1 ,l lh lh 283] ¼2002½ 1 ,l lh lh 1] ¼2004½ 5 ,l lh lh 518 ¼2005½ 2 ,l lh lh 673] fjV vihy Øekad 1267 lu~ 2007 fu.kÊr fnukad 25-3-2009] fjV vihy Øekad 510 lu~ 2009 fu.khZr fnukad 17-12-2009 rFkk fjV vihy Øekad 607 lu~ 2011 fu.kÊr fnukad 22-9-2011 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 28 ,oa 31½
ORDER
Rafiq, CJ. -- 1. These matters have been laid before the Larger Bench upon a reference made by the Division Bench of this Court, doubting correctness of the earlier decision of the Full Bench, consisting of three Judges, in Masood Akhtar (Dr.) v. R.K. Tripathi reported in 2012 (I) MPJR (FB) 375 : 2012 SCC OnLine MP 11024. (Though the Division Bench in the reference order has mentioned Prakash Chandra Jangre (State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Prakash Chandra Jangre) as the main case, but the lead judgment of the Full Bench was delivered in Masood Akhtar (supra). It may be noted at the outset that the aforementioned decision of Full Bench was challenged by the State of Madhya Pradesh by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.20288/2012 (State of M.P. v. Masood Akhtar) and other connected matters, which were dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 1.9.2017 (2017 SCC OnLine SC 1972). Thereafter, Review Petition (Civil) No. 2663/2018, (State of M.P. v.Masood Akhtar) arising therefrom was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 18.9.2019 (2018 SCC OnLine SC 3568). Referring to the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Masood Akhtar (Dr.) (supra), the Division Bench of this Court by order under reference dated 30.5.2019, doubting correctness of the same, made the reference by the following order :
“22. In view of the foregoing observations, we deem it appropriate to refer the judgment of the Full Bench to the Larger Bench to answer the aforesaid issues.
23. Registrar (Judicial) is requested to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice to do the needful and to take appropriate steps in this regard in view of the foregoing observations.”
2. The writ petitioners before this Court, challenging the aforesaid order dated 30.5.2019 passed by the Division Bench making reference to the Full Bench, filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.14036/2019 (Warad Murti Mishra v. State of M.P. & another) and connected matters. The Supreme Court by detailed order dated 11.7.2019 initially stayed the operation of the aforequoted paras-22 & 23 of the order passed by the Division Bench and issued notices. Thereafter, the Supreme Court after granting leave finally decided all the appeals vide judgment dated 15.6.2020, reported in (2020)7 SCC 509. Apart from merits of the case, it was also argued before the Supreme Court that since reference to the Full Bench in Masood Akhtar (Dr.) (supra), was made on account of divergent views expressed by two Division Benches of this Court, with the dismissal of SLP as well as review petition arising therefrom, by the Supreme Court, the Full Bench judgment in Masood Akhtar (Dr.) (supra), having attained finality, the Division Bench was bound to follow the decision of the Full Bench and, therefore, reference to the Larger Bench was incompetent. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Pradi Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik reported in (2002) 1 SCC 1 and Sakshi v. Union of India reported in (2004) 5 SCC 518 to argue that no reference could and ought to have been made unless the earlier decisions were so “palpably wrong” or so “very incorrect” that reference was called for and in any case the reference ought to have been made to a Bench of equal strength (three Judges) keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2005) 2 SCC 673. It was also argued that the Full Bench in Masood Akhtar (Dr.) (supra), failed to consider binding decision of the Supreme Court in M.P. Chandoria v. State of M.P. & others reported in (1996) 11 SCC 173, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkinkar Gupta reported in (2000) 10 SCC 77 and Om Prakash Shrivastava v. State of M.P. reported in (2005) 11 SCC 488. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals with the following observations as co
SupremeToday
Once a decision is taken to which there is no challenge but if aforesaid decision is implemented by an Authority or in a manner against provisions of law or in excess of Authority or jurisdiction ves....
Seniority for direct recruits is determined by the date of continuous regular appointment in a given rank. Delays in joining caused by medical review processes do not entitle candidates to retrospect....
The court reaffirmed that temporary or ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority rights, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory rules for public service appointments.
Seniority inter-se direct recruits and promotee District Judges shall be determined on the basis of Roster.
The seniority list was not prepared in accordance with the rules and the petitioners' objections were not considered.
Seniority in service is a statutory right determined by established merit lists, with waiting list candidates lacking rights to precedence over those appointed from the main list.
Seniority between direct recruits and promotees must follow the quota-rota rule under statutory provisions when applicable, regardless of past non-implementation, ensuring fairness in the same recrui....
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
