- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dr Satyabrata Dutta Choudhury v. State Of Assam And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Both appeals arise from a common judgment of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland dated 13 August 1971 dismissing two writ petitions filed by Dr. Satyabrata Dutta Choudhury and Dr. Guru Prasad Sarma (“the appellants”). The appellants were first appointed Registrars in Surgery in 1961 under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951 (“the Regulations”). On 23 April 1962 they became Assistant Professors of Surgery under Regulation 3(e). Subsequently, Respondents 4-6—Dr. Hamiduddin Ahmad, Dr. Pradipta Kumar Das Gupta and Dr. Jotimoy Dutta—were also appointed Assistant Professors.
For substantive recruitment, the Assam Public Service Commission interviewed all candidates in September 1963. Its letter of 3 October 1963 recommended appointments in the following order of merit: Ahmad, Das Gupta, Dutta, Choudhury, Sarma. A Government notification of 9 December 1963 formally appointed them Assistant Professors, reserving decision on inter se seniority. On 14 May 1964 seniority was fixed placing the appellants below Respondents 4-6. Respondents 4-5 were promoted as Professors on 25 April 1964. After unsuccessful representations, the appellants challenged the seniority list in the High Court, which dismissed their petitions. They obtained special-leave and appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Assistant Professors initially appointed under Regulation 3(e) acquire seniority based on the date they assumed charge or in accordance with the merit list prepared by the Assam Public Service Commission when their appointments are later regularised in one batch.
- Whether Article 16 of the Constitution mandates that earlier joining date must prevail over a subsequent merit-based list in fixing seniority in the absence of statutory service rules.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The appellants joined as Assistant Professors earlier than Respondents 4-6 and therefore should rank senior to them.
- Relying on Article 16 of the Constitution, they contended that denying them seniority despite earlier appointment violates equality of opportunity in public employment.
Respondents’/State’s Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents’ legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first observed that appointments made under Regulation 3(e) are expressly “officiating” and “defeasible,” pending consultation with the Public Service Commission; consequently, they confer no vested right to seniority. Although no statutory rule existed for determining seniority, Government instructions dated 5 February 1964 (para 210.2) expressly governed officers whose appointments under Regulations 3(e) and 3(f) are later regularised through the Commission. Under those instructions:
- Where appointments are regularised in one batch, inter se seniority must follow the Commission’s merit list.
Because the appellants and Respondents 4-6 were regularised together by the 9 December 1963 notification, their seniority had to mirror the Commission’s order of merit. The impugned seniority list was prepared exactly on that basis; indeed, the High Court found—and the parties did not dispute—that it reflected the Commission’s recommendation.
Given these facts, the Court held that Article 16 was inapplicable: the differential treatment flowed directly from Government instructions validly filling the gap left by the absence of service rules, not from arbitrary or discriminatory action. Consequently, the appellants’ earlier dates of joining could not override the merit-based seniority prescribed by the instructions.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Dismissed.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court, upholding the seniority list that ranked the appellants junior to Respondents 4-6. The decision confirms that, in Assam, Government instructions can validly regulate seniority where statutory rules are silent, and that officiating appointments under Regulation 3(e) confer no enforceable right to seniority when later regularised. The ruling has immediate effect only on the parties’ ranking and promotions; it sets no new precedent beyond reiterating that administrative instructions may govern in the absence of formal service rules.
P.N Shinghal, J.— These two appeals by special leave are directed against a common judgment of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland dated August 13, 1971. They arise out of facts which are common, and both the cases have been argued together by the Counsel for the parties. We shall therefore dispose of them by this judgment.
2. The facts which have been admitted before us are quite simple and may be stated shortly. Dr Satyabrata Dutta Choudhury, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1454 of 1972, and Dr Guru Prasad Sarma, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1455 of 1972, were appointed as Registrars in Surgery in government colleges of Assam in 1961, under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). They were then appointed Assistant Professors of Surgery under Regulation 3(e), and took over charge on April 23, 1962. Thereafter respondents Dr Hamiduddin Ahmad, Dr Pradipta Kumar Das Gupta and Dr Jotimoy Dutta were similarly appointed as Assistant Professors of Surgery. The Assam Public Service Commission was consulted in regard to recruitment to the posts. It interviewed the appellants and the respondents in September 1963, along with some other candidates. The Commission recommended, in its letter dated October 3, 1963, that Dr Hamiduddin Ahmad, (Respondent 4), Dr P.K Das Gupta (Respondent 5), Dr Jyotimoy Dutt (Respondent 6), Dr S.D Choudhury (appellant) and Dr Guru Prasad Sarma (appellant) may be appointed Assistant Professors of Surgery, in that order. They were accordingly appointed as Assistant Professors by a notification dated December 9, 1963. It was stated in the notification that the inter se seniority of the officers would be decided and notified in due course. That was done by a notification dated May 14, 1964, by which the appellants were made junior to Respondents 4, 5 and 6. The appellants made representations against the fixation of their seniority but to no avail. In the meantime, Respondents 4 and 5 were promoted as Professors of Surgery on April 25, 1964, under Regulation 4(d) of the Regulations. A provisional seniority list of Assistant Professors was also notified. The appellants felt aggrieved and filed separate writ petitions in the High Court. Both the petitions were dismissed by the judgment under appeal.
3. The High Court has taken the view that although there was no statutory rule for fixation of inter se seniority of persons recruited through the Assam Public Service Commission, the following instructions of the State Government notified under Notification No. ABF. 51/63/1 dated February 5, 164, would govern the seniority:
“210.2 Appointments made under Regulations 3(e) and 3(f) of the A.P.S.C (Limitations of Functions) Regulations and later regularised through the A.P.S.C— Normally the appointments made under these two regulations should be regularised within the time specified in the regulation itself. The seniority of the persons whose appointments have been regularised should be determined as follows:
(i) If the appointments of two persons are regularised, earlier should be considered senior to the persons whose appointments were regularised later.
(ii) If the appointments of a number of persons are regularised on one batch, then the inter se seniority of these persons should be according to the merit list of A.P.S.C Even if the A.P.S.C does not give any merit list, the Appointing Authority should request the A.P.S.C to indicate the order of preference of these persons.”
The High Court has stated in its judgment that the inter se seniority of the appellants and the respondents “was fixed on the recommendation of the Assam Public Service Commission” under that notification, and that fact has not been controverted before us.
4. What has been argued is that as the appellants joined earlier as Assistant Professors, they were entitled to rank senior to the respondents who joined later. Reference in this connection has been made to Article 16 of the Constitution.
5. It is not in dispute that the appellants and Respondents 4, 5 and 6 were initially appointed Assistant Professors under Regulation 3(e) of the Regulations, on an officiating basis, to avoid delay, and it was obligatory, in terms of that regulation, to consult the Service Commission as soon as possible. The appointments were thus defeasible, and could not give rise to any legal right in favour of the parties. It is therefore futile to contend that as the appellants joined as Assistant Professors on an earlier date, they were entitled to rank senior to Respondents 4, 5 and 6 irrespective of the result of the final recruitment through the Service Commission.
6. It is no doubt true that no rule had been made to govern the seniority of Assistant Professors, but it is not in controversy that government had notified the aforesaid instructions dated February 2, 1964 in regard to the seniority of the persons appointed under Regulations 3(e) and 3(f) of the Regulations. As the appointments of the appellants and Respondents 4, 5 and 6 were admittedly regularised in one batch, after reference to the Service Commission, by the order dated December 9, 1963, their inter se seniority had to be determined according to the merit list of the Commission. As has been pointed out, it is not in dispute that the impugned seniority list has been fixed on the recommendation of the Commission, so that it is in accordance with the instructions of the government. The High Court has therefore rightly held that the instructions would hold the field in the absence of the service rules. In these facts and circumstances, there can be no question of applying Article 16 to these cases.
7. The appeals fail and are dismissed.
Alert