Bimlesh Tanwar vs State Of Haryana - 2003 Supreme(SC) 300

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2003 Supreme(SC) 300

S.B.SINHA, A.R.LAKSHMANAN
Bimlesh Tanwar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

What is the basis for determining inter se seniority among Haryana Judicial Service officers in the absence of statutory rules? What is the role of merit versus roster/reservation in fixing inter se seniority and appointment under the Haryana Rules? What is the court’s ruling on whether long-standing practice and Neelima Shangla precedent require seniority to be determined by merit list order rather than joining dates or roster points?

What is the basis for determining inter se seniority among Haryana Judicial Service officers in the absence of statutory rules?

What is the role of merit versus roster/reservation in fixing inter se seniority and appointment under the Haryana Rules?

What is the court’s ruling on whether long-standing practice and Neelima Shangla precedent require seniority to be determined by merit list order rather than joining dates or roster points?

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.-Criteria for determining inter se seniority amongst the officers of Haryana Judicial Service; whether on the basis of merit in terms of the merit list or the date of joining, is the core question involved in this appeal which arises out of a Judgment and Order dated 18.8.1999 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 3713 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.

2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Haryana Public Service Commission, respondent No. 3 herein issued an advertisement notifying 24 vacancies of Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) on or about 16.8.1988. The break up of the said posts is as under :

(i) Vacancies for General

Category : 9

(ii) Vacancies reserved for

Scheduled castes : 10

(including five vacancies which remained unfilled on account of non-availability of candidates belonging to SC Category in the competitive exam. Held in 1985-86)

(Advertised 3rd time).

(iii) Vacancies reserved

for ESM : 3

(iv) Vacancies reserved

for Backward Classe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 300

S.B.SINHA, A.R.LAKSHMANANBimlesh Tanwar – AppellantVersusState Of Haryana – Respondent

What is the basis for determining inter se seniority among Haryana Judicial Service officers in the absence of statutory rules?

What is the role of merit versus roster/reservation in fixing inter se seniority and appointment under the Haryana Rules?

What is the court’s ruling on whether long-standing practice and Neelima Shangla precedent require seniority to be determined by merit list order rather than joining dates or roster points?

Cases Referred (16)

S.B.SINHA, A.R.LAKSHMANAN
Bimlesh Tanwar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent