http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 5

PETITIONER:

K.S. VORA AND OTHERS

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/10/1987

BENCH:

MISRA RANGNATH

BENCH:

MISRA RANGNATH

RANGNATHAN, S.

CITATION:

1987 AIR 2348 1988 SCR (1) 611

1988 SCC (1) 311 JT 1987 (4) 179

1987 SCALE (2)835

CITATOR INFO :

R 1988 SC 294 (4)

C 1989 SC1794 (3)

ACT:

Seniority matter of government employees in the Gujarat

Subordinate Secretariat Service-Gujarat Subordinate

Secretariat Service-(Seniority of Assistants) Rules, 1977.

HEADNOTE:

%

The appellants had joined the government service as

clerks-cum-typists before the bifurcation, in May, 1960, of

the State of Bombay into Maharashtra and Gujarat States. The

Subordinate Secretariat Service then consisted of four

grades-(i) Clerk-cum-typist, (ii) Junior Assistant, (iii)

Senior Assistant, and (iv) Superintendent. On the formation

of Gujarat State, Government business in the secretariat was

divided into nine separate Departments so far as the

Subordinate service was concerned. Later, by a government

Resolution, a common cadre of Superintendents for all the

departments was created, and promotion to the post of the

Superintendent was directed to be made out of a common list

of senior assistants, and by another resolution, the grades

of the senior assistants and junior assistants were merged

into one post termed as Assistant, and a common seniority

list of the Assistants was prepared. In October, 1974, by

another Resolution, a common cadre of the clerks-cum-typists

was created and promotion to the post of Assistant was

provided therefrom. This October Resolution of the

government was challenged before the High Court by two writ

petitions. In the meantime, the Gujarat Subordinate

Secretariat Service (Seniority of Assistants) Rules, 1977,

were framed, which were to come into operation with

retrospective effect from May, 1960. Rule 4 of the Rules

laid down the principle for determining seniority by

providing that seniority among promotees-Assistants inter se

shall be fixed on the basis of their length of service in

the joint cadre of clerk-cum-typist for all Departments of

the Secretariat as a whole.

The High Court passed an order, dismissing the two writ

petitions. The order of the High Court is appealed against

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 5

by Special Leave in this Court, mainly on the ground that

the retrospective operation of the Rules regarding seniority

takes away the vested rights of the appellants of their

prospects of promotions.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court,

612

^

HELD: A Common cadre was created for increasing

efficiency A and in the interests of discipline. After the

formation of the common cadre, general feeling of

dissatisfaction owing to disparity of seniority was

generated. The 1977 rules were introduced to ease that

situation. The scheme of the Rule regarding seniority

protected the rank then held by every member of the service

notwithstanding the alteration of seniority on the new

basis. To that extent, the 1977 rules were not

retrospective. [615B-C]

There was no challenge to the creation of the common

cadre. Secondly, the rules of seniority are a matter for the

employer to frame, and even though the prospects of

promotion were likely to be prejudiced by the introduction

of some new set of rules to regulate seniority, if the rules

were made bona fide to meet the exigencies of the service,

no entertainable grievance could be made, and the appellants

have no grievance to make. [615E-FI

Mervyn v. Collector of Customs, Bombay and others,

[1966] 3 S.C.R.600; Roshan Lal Tandan v. Union of India,

[1968]1 S.C.R.185 and State of Jammu & Kashmir v.