- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
A.K Bhatnagar And Others v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The litigation concerns officers of the Central Information Service (CIS), a seven-tier service constituted under the Central Information Service Rules, 1959. After the initial constitution of the CIS on 1 March 1960, four direct-recruit examinations were held (1964, 1965, 1969 and 1970). In addition, 73 ad hoc employees—who had not qualified through these examinations—were regularised en bloc by a notification dated 27 January 1977 issued under the newly inserted second proviso to Rule 6-A. The notification placed all such regularised officers below the last successful candidate of the 1970 examination.
Respondent 1, Shri V. Thirunavukkarasu, whose name appeared 19th in the 1977 notification, filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court seeking inclusion of his ad hoc service (25 May 1964 – 4 January 1977) for seniority and consequent promotion to Grades II and I. A learned Single Judge allowed his claim, relying on decisions of this Court in Baleshwar Dass and N.K. Chauhan. A Division Bench affirmed that order.
The Union of India obtained special-leave to appeal against the Division Bench judgment (Civil Appeal of 1985). Two other civil appeals challenge 1987 orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal that had followed the Madras decision. A separate writ petition under Article 32 was filed by 29 similarly situated officers.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether ad hoc service rendered before regularisation on 4 January 1977 should be counted for determining inter se seniority among direct recruits in Grade IV of the Central Information Service.
- Whether the Government’s direction to place the regularised officers en bloc below the 1970 examination recruits was consistent with the CIS Rules, 1959 (as amended).
Arguments of the Parties
Regularised Officers (including Shri V. Thirunavukkarasu)
- Claimed that ad hoc service from 1964 onward should be treated as qualifying service for seniority once regularisation occurred in 1977.
- Relied on Supreme Court rulings in Baleshwar Dass and N.K. Chauhan to assert that officiating service cannot be ignored after regular appointment.
- Sought promotion to higher grades on the strength of the revised seniority.
Union of India
- Contended that seniority is governed exclusively by the CIS Rules, 1959, which provide for direct recruitment through competitive examinations and specify that regularised officers were outside the cadre until 4 January 1977.
- Argued that the 1977 notification correctly placed regularised officers below the last successful candidate of the 1970 examination.
- Maintained that precedents involving disputes between direct recruits and promotees were inapplicable to a dispute solely among direct recruits.
Submissions by Counsel for Certain Other Regularised Employees
- Requested that their pre-examination ad hoc service also be counted for seniority, despite having later qualified through an examination.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P. (1980) 4 SCC 226; (1981) 1 SCR 449 | Officiating service should be counted once an employee is regularised. | The High Court relied on this ruling, but the Supreme Court held it inapplicable because that case concerned seniority between direct recruits and promotees, not inter se direct recruits governed by explicit rules. |
| N.K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1977) 1 SCC 308; (1977) 1 SCR 1037 | Principle similar to Baleshwar Dass on counting of officiating service. | Likewise distinguished by the Supreme Court as not controlling where service rules expressly determine seniority among direct recruits. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Seniority is an incidence of service and, where rules exist, must be computed strictly in accordance with those rules.
2. Regularised officers “remained outside the cadre until 4 January 1977.” Therefore, their prior ad hoc service could not be credited for seniority over candidates who had entered the cadre through the competitive examinations of 1964–1970.
3. The second proviso to Rule 6-A expressly allowed their appointment only after suitability screening and directed that they be placed en bloc below the 1970 batch; the 1977 notification faithfully implemented this mandate.
4. Precedents dealing with conflicts between direct recruits and promotees were inapplicable; the present dispute involved only direct recruits, and the governing rules left no residual discretion.
5. Because the Government acted within the four corners of the CIS Rules, judicial interference by the High Court and Tribunal was unwarranted.
6. A limited equitable consideration was noted: Shri Thirunavukkarasu, already promoted pursuant to the High Court’s judgment and near retirement, may be allowed to continue in a supernumerary post without further promotion unless he becomes eligible under the seniority fixed by the rules.
Holding and Implications
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals and dismissed the writ petition. The judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Madras High Court, as well as the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, were set aside; the original claims before the Tribunal were dismissed.
Implications: The seniority list remains as directed in the 27 January 1977 notification, placing all regularised officers beneath the 1970 examination recruits. The decision reiterates that governmental actions must conform strictly to rules framed under Article 309; no new legal doctrine was created, but the judgment underscores the binding nature of service rules and discourages administrative deviations.
Ranganath Misra, C.J— The civil appeals are by special leave and the writ petition is under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Civil Appeal (sic) of 1985 is directed against an affirming Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court dated August 16, 1984 in a writ appeal while the two other civil appeals are directed against two separate judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal made in 1987 following the aforesaid Madras decision. The writ petition as will be presently indicated is by 29 petitioners who had not been regularly recruited to the service but later by amendment of the Rules were regularised in service in 1977.
2. The service with which we are concerned in this group of cases is known as “Central Information Service” (CIS for short). This service was constituted by the Central Information Service Rules, 1959 framed by the President in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution with effect from March 1, 1960 in terms of Rule 5. This was on the basis of selecting 400 ‘departmental candidates’ as defined in Rule 2-B of the Rules. Rule 6 provides that after the initial constitution of the service, future vacancies in grade IV would be filled by direct recruitment on the basis of the result of a competitive examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in accordance with the educational qualifications and age limit mentioned in Schedule VIII and the scheme of examination which is to be finalised in consultation with the Commission.
3. Under Rule 4 the service has seven tiers beginning with grade IV and going up to the selection grade. Direct recruitment is to grade IV and the higher grades are manned on the basis of promotion. The requirements of promotional qualifications are in Rule 6-A. In this group of cases the dispute is one of inter se seniority among direct recruits to grade IV.
4. After the initial constitution there were four recruitments up to 1970, being in 1964, 1965, 1969 and 1970. It appears that in 1964 there was condonation of the age bar and 141 candidates had appeared but 22 qualified. In 1965 and 1970 perhaps there was no relaxation of age while in 1969 the prescribed age was relaxed. In the service there were 68 ad hoc employees who have been regularised in the subsequent recruitments referred to above while there were 73 other ad hoc employees who either took the examination and failed or never sat at the examinations to become regular recruits until the second proviso was added to Rule 6-A of the Rules and the order regularising their service was made by notification dated January 27, 1977. The provision in question reads thus:
“Provided further that persons appointed on or before July 1, 1976 to discharge the duties and functions of the posts included in grade IV of the Central Information Service to make good the shortfall in the filling up of vacancies in the grade by the abovementioned method and who have discharged the duties and responsibilities of the post included in grade IV of the service for at least five years shall be appointed to the grade after they are screened by a Selection Committee to determine their suitability for appointment.”
5. In terms of this proviso the notification of January 27, 1977, was issued to the following effect:
“Under second proviso to Rule 6-A of the Central Information Service Rules, 1959 as amended from time to time the following officers holding ad hoc appointment against grade IV posts of the CIS are hereby appointed on regular basis in grade IV of the Central Information Service with effect from January 4, 1977 until further orders….
The above officers will be placed en bloc in the same order below the last grade IV officers appointed on the basis of 1970 examination i.e below Shri Sita Ram No. (sic)”.
6. Mr V. Thirunavukkarasu, respondent 1, in the Civil Appeal of 1985 whose services were regularised by the order of January 27, 1977 with effect from January 4, 1977 — and his name occurred at 19th place in the notification — moved the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a mandamus to the Union Government to consider his case for promotion to grade II and grade I of the service in the existing vacancies arising subsequent to 1964 by taking into consideration the period of his ad hoc service from the year 1964. He maintained that the ad hoc service between May 25, 1964 to January 4, 1977 should have been taken into account for determining his seniority. This virtually challenged the direction in the government order of January 27, 1977, requiring the regularised employees to be placed below the regular recruits up to 1970 on the basis of that year's examination. The Union Government opposed the claim but the learned Single Judge relied upon the judgments of this Court in Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P (1980) 4 SCC 226, (1981) 1 SCR 449 and N.K Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1977) 1 SCC 308, (1977) 1 SCR 1037 and held that the officiating service would not be ignored once regularisation was made and directed the said period between 1964 and 1977 to be taken into account. The Division Bench affirmed the decision.
7. The law is clear that seniority is an incidence of service and where the service rules prescribe the method of its computation, it is squarely governed by such rules. In the absence of a provision ordinarily the length of service is taken into account. A dispute of this nature normally arises between recruits from two sources, namely, direct and promotees. In this group of cases, however, we are concerned with the inter se seniority between direct recruits alone. The note to Schedule VIII indicated that the inter se seniority of recruits of one year would be on the basis of merit.
8. It was considerably disputed before us as to whether there were regular recruitment examinations and an attempt was even made to equate the examination contemplated under the Rules with the screening contemplated under the amended proviso. We have found no force in such a contention. The steps taken by the Union Government and the acceptance of such steps by the regularised officers clearly militate against such a contention.
9. The regularised officers admittedly remained outside the cadre until January 4, 1977 from when their services were regularised. The Union Government was, therefore, right while regularising the services under the notification to direct that the regularised officers would be placed below regular recruits through the 1970 examination.
10. Reliance on the ratio of cases where disputes of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees on the basis of officers of one category manning the posts meant for the other category should not have been relied upon for determining a dispute of the nature that arose in these cases. Since rules are clear and the government action was within the purview of the rules, judicial interference was not called for.
11. It was contended before us at the hearing that the petitioner before the Madras High Court in compliance of the High Court decision has now gone to grade I and a short period is left to superannuation and in case there is reversion now he would suffer irreparably. There is perhaps some force in what is said. We had, therefore, suggested in course of the hearing of these cases that he may not be disturbed from his present position and be permitted to hold a supernumerary post but he would not be entitled to any further promotion unless by the seniority assigned to him in terms of the regularisation notification he becomes entitled to it.
12. Mr Bhandari learned counsel for some of the regularised employees not covered by the government notification of regularisation but whose services became regular through the examinations contended that though they have taken the examination and become regularised under the rules, their past service should also be taken into account. We do not find any force in such a submission particularly when there is a definite rule dealing with seniority and they had subjected themselves to that process. Their seniority in terms of the rules had to be regulated according to the merits of the respective lists in the years when the examinations were held. We, therefore, do not propose to meddle with the service in any manner. The net result, therefore, would be that the writ petition has to be dismissed and the civil appeals have to be allowed. The judgments of the Division Bench and the Single Judge of the High Court are set aside and the judgments of the Tribunal are vacated and the two claims filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal are also dismissed.
13. On more than one occasion this Court has indicated to the Union and the State Governments that once they frame rules, their action in respect of matters covered by rules should be regulated by the rules. The rules framed in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are solemn rules having binding effect. Acting in a manner contrary to the rules does create problem and dislocation. Very often government themselves get trapped on account of their own mistakes or actions in excess of what is provided in the rules. We take serious view of these lapses and hope and trust that the government both at the Centre and in the States would take note of this position and refrain from acting in a manner not contemplated by their own rules. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert